Skip to content

Category: Health News

Published on
National Blood Donor Month 2022 Logo.
Image from@AABB (https://twitter.com/AABB/status/1478072422326800385/photo/1)

January is National Blood Donor Month. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed a proclamation designating January as National Blood Donor Month (NBDM) on December 31, 1969 (AABB, 2021). Originally meant to honor blood donors and to encourage more people to give blood during the winter months when blood supplies are traditionally low due to lagging donations from the holidays and cold and flu season, it is not uncommon for there to be shortages in the blood supply during January. 

January 2022 is no exception! According to a joint statement put out by the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB), America’s Blood Centers, and the American Red Cross, the nation’s blood supply is currently at a critically low level. The joint statement explains that blood centers have reported less than a one-day supply of certain blood types. As of yesterday, January 11, 2022, 36% of the country’s blood centers have a one-day supply or less, and only 2% of the nation’s blood centers reported having a three day or more supply (enough to meet normal operating demands) according to America’s Blood Centers. The American Red Cross, which supplies 40% of the nation's blood supply, states that the organization is facing “its worst blood shortage in over a decade, posing a concerning risk to patient care” (American Red Cross, 2022). 

While the blood supply is traditionally lower in January, the current COVID-19 case surge, winter storms, blood drive cancellations, staffing challenges and donor eligibility misinformation have all posed additional threats to the current blood supply. The American Red Cross states that an overall 10% decline in donations since March 2020, and a 62% decline in college and high school blood drives resulting from the pandemic have also influenced the blood shortage crisis (American Red Cross, 2022). Meanwhile, the demand for blood has not decreased. According to the joint statement, “blood donations are needed now to avert the need to postpone potential lifesaving treatments” (AABB, America’s Blood Centers, American Red Cross, 2022).  

Regardless of your blood type, donating can make a positive impact! The requirements for donating blood are simple: Donors must be healthy and feeling well, be at least 17 years old, and weigh 110 pounds or more. If you have donated blood recently, wait at least 56 days before making another donation. 

You can participate in National Blood Donor Month and help replenish critically low blood supplies by scheduling an appointment to donate blood today! The American Red Cross is currently offering extra incentives to blood donors who donate by January 31, 2022 including a chance to win a trip to Super Bowl LVI! Contact one of the following organizations to find a blood collection site near you:

Donating blood is safe as blood donation sites have adapted safety protocols to comply with local, state, and federal safety regulations to protect blood donors and staff. Donors and staff are required to wear masks, donor beds meet social distancing needs, and cleaning processes have been enhanced. One unit of blood can save up to three lives, yet less than 5% of eligible donors give blood. Donating blood is an easy and free way you can make a positive contribution during these times, so celebrate National Blood Donor Month by donating in January! 

Blood is an essential medicine infographic with statistics about blood donation.
Downloadable infographic from AABB available at https://www.aabb.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/donors-and-patients/aabb-blood-essential-medicine-poster.pdf?sfvrsn=b1c0ba68_2

References

America’s Blood Centers’ (January 11, 2022). America’s blood centers’ website. https://americasblood.org/

American Red Cross (2022). Worst blood shortage in over a decade. National blood crisis. https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/dlp/red-cross-national-blood-shortage-crisis.html

Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB). (2021). National blood donor month. https://www.aabb.org/for-donors-patients/national-blood-donor-month

Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies, America's Blood Centers, American Red Cross (January 10, 2022). Joint statement: Blood donors urgently needed during national blood donor month and throughout the year. National blood donors month. https://www.aabb.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/positions/joint-statement-blood-donors-urgently-needed-during-national-blood-donor-month.pdf?sfvrsn=4506f62e_6

Published on

In the early 1980s there were official reports of once healthy, young, gay men falling severely ill and dying from an unknown illness. The first five reported cases included men ranging in age from 29 to 36, all displaying various symptoms and eventually developing pneumonia. In the summer of 1981, the CDC established a task force to study this new debilitating condition and since then researchers have worked diligently to understand and find treatment options. The condition and the virus that causes this illness were eventually named Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) respectively. Since its initial discovery, the spread of HIV has been classified as an pandemic and has impacted millions of people around the world. UNAIDS estimates that 79.3 million people have been infected with HIV since the beginning of the pandemic and as of 2020, approximately 37.7 million people currently live with HIV.  While there is no vaccine available to prevent HIV, over the decades researchers have discovered treatment options to help individuals manage their symptoms. Through ongoing research and clinical trials, HIV/AIDS researchers have several promising leads that could potentially help with the creation of a safe and effective vaccine that will contribute to the end of this decades long pandemic.

Researchers at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) are actively studying HIV and how it interacts with people’s immune systems by conducting research and clinical trials. Using a two step, complementary approach towards vaccine development, researchers not only learn new information about the virus, but they also hope to use their findings to develop a vaccine that can be distributed to the general public. Under the empirical approach, researchers rely on observation and experimentation to move different vaccine candidates into the human trial stages. With the theoretical approach, researchers seek to better understand the virus, how it impacts the human immune system and how a vaccine can bolster the immune response when a person is exposed to HIV. These two approaches allow researchers to quickly move vaccine candidates through the different stages of clinical trials.

Infographic depicting information on the history of HIV vaccine research.
Credit: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

One of the most significant HIV vaccine clinical trials in recent years was the RV144 Trial in Thailand. This study enrolled over 16,000 volunteers and took place over the course of several years, with researchers reporting their findings in 2009. This trial showed that the vaccine candidates offered some protection against HIV in humans, which was the first time researchers discovered a vaccine could potentially protect people from the virus. The RV144 findings are still being analyzed for how the vaccine combination used in the trial helps our immune responses and other studies hope to build off the modest success of the RV144 trial. In the late 2010s, two other important clinical trials began and their data may offer a glimmer of hope for vaccine development. Launched in 2017 by the National Institutes of Health and other research partners, the HVTN 705/HPX2008 or Imbokodo study enrolled HIV-negative women in sub-Saharan Africa and used a vaccine regime “based on ‘mosaic’ immunogens–vaccine components designed to induce immune responses against a wide variety of global HIV strains.” (“NIH and Partners Launch HIV Vaccine Efficacy Study”) A complementary study called HPX3002/HVTN 706 or Mosiaco used a similar vaccine regime and took place across several countries including the United States, Brazil, and Poland. The Mosiaco study volunteers were made up of HIV-negative men and transgender people from the ages of 18 to 60. The results from the Imbokodo and Mosiaco studies were released in 2020 and 2021 respectively, though it may take years before researchers have a full understanding of the impact of these two clinical trials. In more recent news, NIAID scientists published an article in Nature Medicine that highlighted promising results of an HIV vaccine candidate based on the mRNA program used to develop vaccines for COVID-19. The researchers found that the vaccine showed promise in mice and non-human primates. According to Dr. Paolo Lusso, who led the team of researchers, "We are now refining our vaccine protocol to improve the quality and quantity of the VLPs (virus-like particles) produced. This may further increase vaccine efficacy and thus lower the number of prime and boost inoculations needed to produce a robust immune response. If confirmed safe and effective, we plan to conduct a Phase 1 trial of this vaccine platform in healthy adult volunteers..." ("Experimental mRNA HIV vaccine safe, shows promise in animals") It is difficult to predict when a vaccine will be available to the general public. But the results from clinical trials like the RV144 trial offer hope that one day researchers will create a safe vaccine and bring an end to this decades long pandemic.

 Our understanding of HIV and AIDS continues to evolve. Treatment options are improving allowing individuals with HIV to live comfortably. And every day researchers work to develop a vaccine that will provide significant protection for individuals who may be exposed to the virus. This post is a short overview of the history and current state of HIV vaccine research. If you’re interested in learning more about the history of HIV vaccine development, please visit the NIAID’s website dedicated to HIV/AIDS research and be sure to read through their ‘History of HIV Vaccine Research’ timeline which includes brief information about other previous clinical trials not discussed in this article.  Or click the links embedded in this article to learn more about the specific clinical trials and their results.

References:

“Experimental MRNA HIV Vaccine Safe, Shows Promise in Animals.” National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9 Dec. 2021, www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/experimental-mrna-hiv-vaccine-safe-shows-promise-animals.

“Global HIV and AIDS Statistics-Fact Sheet.” UNAIDS, www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet. Accessed 20 Dec. 2021.

“History of HIV Vaccine Research.” NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 22 Oct. 2018, www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/hiv-vaccine-research-history.

“HIV Vaccine Development.” NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 15 May 2019, www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/hiv-vaccine-development.

“NIH and Partners Launch HIV Vaccine Efficacy Study.” NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 30 Nov. 2017, www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/nih-and-partners-launch-hiv-vaccine-efficacy-study.

“NIH and Partners to Launch HIV Vaccine Efficacy Trial in the Americas and Europe.” NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 15 July 2019, www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/nih-and-partners-launch-hiv-vaccine-efficacy-trial-americas-and-europe.

1

Published on 1 Comment on Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire: The Juul Journal Controversy
Image of shopping cart with $20 bills inside next to a stack of books.
Photo by Karolina Grabowska from Pexels

A July 2021 post on MedPage Today discussed the fact that e-cigarette maker Juul had spent $51,000 to publish an entire special issue of articles in the American Journal of Health Behavior (AJHB) that promote the use of e-cigarettes. The special issue includes 11 studies focused on “the implications of switching from cigarettes to Juul systems, and dual use of cigarettes and Juul products” (Torjesen, 2021). 

Juul partnered with Pinney Associates and the Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR) to conduct these studies (Basen, 2021). According to the Pinney Associates website, they help “pharmaceutical companies and consumer healthcare clients to reduce their regulatory risk and enhance the commercial value of their life sciences products” (Pinney Associates, 2021). The company began working exclusively with Juul Labs, Inc. in 2019 “to advance relative risk-based regulation of nicotine and tobacco products” because “smokers should not have to suffer unnecessarily and risk dying prematurely because of how they get their nicotine” (Pinney Associates, 2021). 

CSUR’s website states that they are an “independent research centre” with a goal of ensuring that those within the e-cigarette industry “have access to high quality behavioural research that can further their own goals of reducing the harms associated with the use of combustible tobacco products” (CSUR, 2021). The CSUR website even touted the recent special issue of AJHB as “reporting on the impact of the JUUL e-cigarette on adult smoker behavior” and later praised Juul’s commitment to “strengthening the evidence base around the contribution of electronic nicotine delivery systems in reducing the multiple harms of smoking” (CSUR, 2021). 

According to MedPage Today, “Juul staff contributed to every article...while Pinney staff worked on 10 of them and CSUR staff conducted data analyses for seven” of the 11 articles published in this AJHB special issue. While AJHB policy is to charge researchers to publish in their journal, it is unusual for a company to purchase an entire issue. 

A Juul news release from April 2021 stated that following Juul’s Premarket Tobacco Product Applications (PMTA) filing in July 2020, the 11 studies published in this special issue were a result of Juul’s regulatory team shifting their focus to publishing “key research underlying our application through peer-reviewed manuscripts.” The FDA is currently considering this filing and was expected to announce a ruling yesterday (September 9, 2021) on whether or not Juul vaping products could remain on the market. However, the FDA delayed this decision saying it needed more time to rule on Juul’s products according to an article published in The Washington Post and an NPR story that aired on All Things Considered yesterday.

AJHB has faced criticism following the publication of the special issue. The backlash has resulted in the retirement of Elbert Glover, the journal’s executive editor at the time of the issue’s publication, and the resignation of three editorial board members. While Juul claims that the company “must engage with the public health community on the science and facts underlying our products,” critics including David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, point out that all articles published in the AJHB special issue “take the Juul party line that e-cigarettes help convert smokers away from combustible tobacco products, and thus aid public health” (Basen, 2021). 

“After decades of tobacco companies paying previously credible scientists to produce studies designed to reach a predetermined outcome to foster their marketing goals and mislead the public about the overall state of the evidence, one thing should be abundantly clear: research funded by tobacco companies cannot be treated as a credible source of science or evidence. No credible scientific journal should allow a tobacco company to use it for this purpose.”

Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (Torjesen, 2021)

Elbert Glover, AJHB’s now retired editor-in-chief, defended the journal's decision to publish the special issue in a recent BMJ news article and explained that “to reject a paper [based] on who funded the work rather than science is wrong '' (Torjesen, 2021). Glover also claimed that all manuscripts went through the full review process with no special treatment, and nothing was hidden during the review process (Torjesen, 2021). However, this claim was refuted by a reviewer who alleged that “reviewers were not informed of Juul’s role until they questioned ‘fishy’ aspects of the studies” (Redden, 2021). The unnamed reviewer explained she even recommended one study be rejected because it was so biased and made her think there was “No way it wasn’t funded by Juul” (Redden, 2021). 

This situation is a reminder of the importance of thinking critically about research. Publication itself in a peer-reviewed journal is not enough to ensure that the research is good research. Things to consider when evaluating research include: potential conflict of interest (i.e. author affiliation and/or funding sources), bias, appropriate study design, sample size (and if the sample is representative of the wider population), data collection methods, and the use of appropriate statistical measures and methods.

The funding source of research that produced an article is perhaps the most relevant of these criteria in the case of the AJHB Juul special issue. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed articles published in peer-reviewed journals and assessed whether or not funding sources supported or opposed substitution of tobacco or nicotine products as harm reduction (Hendlin et al., 2019). Of the 826 articles reviewed, “23.9% disclosed support by industry; 49% of articles endorsed THR [tobacco harm reduction]; 42% opposed it, and 9% took a neutral or mixed positions” (Hendlin et al., 2019). The article concluded that “non-industry funded articles were evenly divided in stance, while industry-funded articles favored THR” and that “public health practitioners and researchers need to account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence in THR debates” (Hendlin et al., 2019).

Do you want to learn more about how to evaluate a resource’s credibility? Himmelfarb Library can help! Check out the following video for more information about evaluating a resource's credibility

References:

Aubrey, A. (2021, September 9). The FDA will take more time to determine if benefits of Juul Products Outweigh Harm. All Things Considered. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/09/1035610408/the-fda-will-take-more-time-to-determine-if-benefits-of-juuls-products-outweigh-

Basen, R. (July 13, 2021). Juul bought out medical journal for $51K: E-cig maker sponsored nearly a dozen studies, took over journal as it awaits FDA ruling. Medpage Today. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93555?xid=nl_mpt_investigative2021-07-21&eun=g1151854d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=InvestigativeMD_072121&utm_term=NL_Gen_Int_InvestigateMD_Active

CSUR: Centre for Substance Use Research. (2021). Centre for Substance Use Research website. https://www.csures.com/

Hendlin, Y. H., Vora, M., Elias, J., & Ling, P. M. (2019). Financial Conflicts of Interest and Stance on Tobacco Harm Reduction: A Systematic Review. American journal of public health, 109(7), e1–e8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305106

Perrone, M. (2021, September 9). FDA delays decision on e-cigarettes from vaping giant Juul. The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/fda-delays-decision-on-e-cigarettes-from-vaping-giant-juul/2021/09/09/3bb84966-119e-11ec-baca-86b144fc8a2d_story.html

Pinney Associates. (2021). Pinney Associates homepage. https://www.pinneyassociates.com/

Redden, E. July 13, 2021. Buying Off an Academic Journal? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/07/13/e-cigarette-maker-juul-pays-51000-fund-special-issue-juul

Torjesen I. (2021). Academic journal is criticised for publishing special issue funded by tobacco industry. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 373, n1247. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1247

Published on
Picture of a mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine vial.
Photo by Spencer Davis on Unsplash

If you have watched the news during the past year, you’ve likely heard about mRNA vaccines. You may even have had a more personal connection to mRNA vaccines. If you received either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, you received an mRNA vaccine! Perhaps you heard that GW served as a clinical trial site for the Moderna mRNA vaccine, and may have volunteered for the clinical trial. 

How do these vaccines work? Traditional vaccines trigger immune responses in the body through injecting “a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies” (CDC, 2021). mRNA vaccines work differently. Messenger RNA, or mRNA, is a type of ribonucleic acid (RNA) that uses information in cells to create a blueprint for protein production within the body (NLM, NIH, HHS, 2021). mRNA vaccines introduce “a piece of mRNA that corresponds to a viral protein, usually a piece of a protein found on the virus’s outer membrane” (NLM, NIH, HHS, 2021). Your body uses this mRNA as a recipe, and cells start to make this viral protein. “As part of a normal immune response, the immune system recognizes that the protein is foreign and produces specialized proteins called antibodies” (NLM, NIH, HHS, 2021). These antibodies protect against infection “by recognizing individual viruses or pathogens, attaching to them, and marking the pathogens for destruction” (NLM, NIH, HHS, 2021). 

The surface of the COVID-19 virus (Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2) is covered in “spike proteins,” a glycoprotein that helps the virus enter a host cell by binding to a receptor on the surface of a host cell and fusing the viral and host cell membranes together. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines teach the body how to make this spike protein, (CDC, 2021). Once vaccinated, your body begins to recognize this spike protein as an intruder and begins to produce antibodies to fight off these spike proteins. Once you have these antibodies, they will be able to identify these spike proteins should you be exposed to the COVID-19 virus (Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2). If you do have a Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 exposure, these antibodies will quickly identify the spike proteins surrounding the virus, attach themselves to these spike proteins, and destroy the COVID-19 virus before it is able to cause serious illness (NLM, NIH, HHS, 2021).

The following video produced by the Mayo Clinic provides a straightforward overview of how mRNA vaccines work against COVID-19:

Many people believe that mRNA vaccines can alter their DNA. However, this is not possible through mRNA vaccines. Once the mRNA has delivered the instructions of how to make the protein to your cells, the mRNA is broken down fairly quickly and “it never enters the nucleus of your cells, where your DNA is kept” (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2021). Since the mRNA never interacts with your DNA, your DNA will not be altered in any way from an mRNA vaccine.

While mRNA vaccines may seem new, they have actually been researched for decades. The first report of a successful mRNA vaccine was reported in 1990 in animals (Pardi et al., 2018). mRNA vaccines have distinct benefits over traditional vaccines. Among these benefits are safety and production. Because the vaccine does not contain the virus itself, there is no risk for infection. Production of mRNA vaccines have the “potential for rapid inexpensive and scalable manufacturing”(Pardi et al., 2018), as has been demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. For a more in-depth scientific review of pre-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, Pardi, Hogan, Porter, and Weissman’s review article titled mRNA Vaccines - A New Era in Vaccinology provides an excellent overview of mRNA vaccines. 

References:

Centers for Disease Control. (2021). Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mRNA.html?s_cid=11344:mrna%20vaccine%20technology:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21

Mayo Clinic Staff. (July 31, 2021). Different types of COVID-19 vaccines: How they work. Mayo Clinic. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/different-types-of-covid-19-vaccines/art-20506465

Mayo Clinic. (2021, February 8). Mayo Clinic Insights: How mRNA Vaccines Work . Mayo Clinic YouTube Channel. https://youtu.be/RvR_yf_haqQ

Pardi, N., Hogan, M. J., Porter, F. W., & Weissman, D. (2018). mRNA vaccines-a new era in vaccinology. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 17(4), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.243

U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services. (2021). What are mRNA vaccines and how do they work? https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines/

Published on

You may have already heard. August is National Immunization Month! Some people are reluctant to be vaccinated and it can be difficult communicating to your patients the importance of staying up to date with their vaccinations. Vaccines not only benefit your patients, but also the larger community. 

The CDC has a fantastic toolkit that features educational resources to help you deliver the message of the importance of vaccines.  The toolkit includes ready-to-use promotional materials that can be shared across social media platforms. It also includes an adult vaccine assessment tool that can help you narrow down what vaccinations may be beneficial for your patients. 

What better way to advocate for and educate not only yourself but your colleagues and patients? The tool also includes an easy-to-read vaccination schedule for children, teens, and infants. Keeping up to date with vaccines can be difficult, especially when your patients have to account for more than one individual. The list includes a chart of vaccine-preventable diseases along with symptoms and complications that can occur if you or your child is not vaccinated. 

How can you support patients with specific health risks? There is also guidance for adults who have health conditions, such as asthma, liver disease, or a weakened immune system.  Traveling? The CDC has you covered with the necessary information you need to make sure you are ready to embark to your destination safely, while providing updated recommendations on the current status of COVID-19 across the globe. Be advised that all travelers are required to have a negative test result before traveling to the US from an international location. 

If you haven’t already, we highly suggest that you take the time to see what the CDC’s Adult Assessment tool can provide for your vaccination information needs.

Published on

National Immunization Awareness Month runs through the month of August and serves as a time to highlight the importance of vaccines and tackle any misconceptions people may have about available vaccinations. In a time where conflicting and potentially harmful information is only a short Google search away, it’s necessary that people have access to reliable and accurate sources of information, particularly when it pertains to making a medical decision. It’s a promising sign that more and more people are signing up for their dose of the COVID-19 vaccination, but there is still a significant portion of the population who are hesitant to receive their vaccine. If you’re in need of resources or tips to address vaccine hesitancy and misconceptions, then the following list will offer some guidance on navigating these difficult conversations. 

Whether you’re having these conversations with a close friend, a family member or a patient, what’s most important is that you use empathy and understanding when addressing their concerns or fears. People’s concerns are legitimate and the conversation will be more productive if you avoid talking down to the person or ignore their feelings over the COVID-19 vaccine. Do your own research and gently, but firmly counter any myths or inaccuracies that may arise during the conversation. Begin from a place of empathy and understanding; ask open-ended questions to get a feel for the person’s hesitancy; do your own research and gently push back against any myths or inaccuracies.

Be sure to offer legitimate sources of information. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has an entire section of their website dedicated to COVID-19 that features new information on the virus, current safety guidelines and resources to help people find their closest vaccination site. If you want a simple breakdown of the COVID-19 vaccine and its safety, use the ‘Benefits of Getting a COVID-19 Vaccine’ guide to address basic concerns. Or check the ‘Myths and Facts about COVID-19 Vaccine’ to familiarize yourself with some of the common misconceptions about the purpose of the vaccine so you are prepared with facts that can help counter the myths during your discussion.

If you’re a healthcare provider and are searching for ways to talk about the vaccine with your patients, consider watching the CDC’s video series, ‘#HowIRecommend’ for tips and techniques you can use when making a vaccine recommendation to your patient. The short video series primarily focuses on vaccine recommendations aimed at children and their guardians, but the advice offered can be used no matter what area of medicine you currently work in. Watch Dr. Tolu Adebanjo’s video on how physicians can improve their vaccine recommendations:

Once you’ve addressed any vaccine concerns, there are still steps you can take to help them. Consider helping them locate a vaccination site or assist them in scheduling an appointment. Offer to drive them to their appointment or watch their kids or pets while they’re away. Continue to support them in any way that you’re able to.

Vaccines are safe and are necessary in slowing the spread of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. We must all do our part to keep ourselves, our friends and family and our larger communities safe. Vaccine misconceptions spread easily on the internet and it’s important to educate ourselves and those around us who may experience vaccine hesitancy or anxiety. This post should provide plenty of tools to help you navigate these conversations so you can successfully dispel the myths many people have about our current vaccines. For more information or resources to help you fight the current vaccine misinformation, be sure to visit the CDC’s website or visit your local health department’s website for resources!

Published on

August is National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM). This annual observance highlights the efforts of healthcare professionals to protect patients of all ages against vaccine-preventable diseases through on-time vaccination.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all aspects of life, including patients’ ability to attend important appointments and receive routine vaccinations. Many patients had to postpone or cancel appointments and still may not have had the opportunity to catch back up on needed healthcare.

During NIAM, encourage your patients to schedule appointments to ensure they are up to date on annual exams and recommended vaccines. Research has consistently shown that healthcare professionals are the most trusted source of vaccine information for parents and patients.

Use NIAM as an opportunity to access CDC educational resources like the #HowIRecommend Video Series, which offers simple and practical guidance for having successful vaccine conversations with parents and patients. These short videos demonstrate how to make effective vaccine recommendations, address common vaccine questions, and take a team-based approach to vaccination.

For those patients who are eligible for COVID-19 vaccination, you play a critical role in helping vaccine recipients understand the importance of vaccination and that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. Check out this toolkit on Talking to Recipients about COVID-19 Vaccination, where you will find resources to help you share clear and accurate information about COVID-19 vaccines, raise awareness about the benefits of vaccination, and address common questions and concerns about what to expect when getting vaccinated.

Published on

After over a year of social distancing and virtual learning, we’re excited to see students, faculty and staff return to GWU's campus for in-person instruction! The university is committed to maintaining a safe environment for everyone and has released updated guidelines and requirements for in person instruction during the fall semester. As part of these new guidelines, the university has implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy:

All students, faculty and staff members who wish to access any building on GW’s campus must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. 

Once you’ve received your full dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, you must update the university by uploading your vaccination card onto the medical portal. A link to the medical portal is located here. 

To upload your vaccination record to the portal, follow these short instructions:

  • Log onto the portal, enter your date of birth and you’ll be directed to the home page
  • On the left side menu, click ‘Medical Clearances’
  • Once you’ve reached the ‘Medical Clearances’ page, scroll until you see ‘Add COVID Vaccine Record’
  • Press ‘Update’ and upload a copy of your vaccination record
    • Note: Please upload the file as a JPEG. PDFs will not be accepted
  • Once you’re ready to upload, click the ‘Done’ button and your record is now in the portal!

The vaccination record must be uploaded by August 1st in order to receive clearance to access any GW buildings. 

If you have any questions about the vaccination requirement or the university’s strategies for maintaining a safe and clean environment in the summer and fall, visit GWU’s Coronavirus Response webpage or the Vaccine page. If you’re unsure of where to go to receive your vaccine, check with your state’s health department or use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Finder. 

We look forward to seeing you in person in a few short weeks!

Published on

NEJM Journal Watch hosts a podcast which it provides alongside summaries of the most important research published in more than 250 medical journals. The Clinical Conversations podcast features interviews about clinical topics. Recent episodes have featured interviews on race and clinical equity:

The Clinical Conversations podcast has also featured interviews with healthcare providers throughout the pandemic. The series includes two interviews with Dr. Julian Flores conducted in March 2000 when Broward County Florida had 600 cases, and again in August 2000 when the case count was 58,000 including 750 deaths.

  1. Dr. Anthony Fauci (NIAID, Bethesda, MD)
  2. Dr. Susan Sadoughi (Boston, MA)
  3. Dr. Matthew Young (suburban Delaware)
  4. Dr. Julian Flores (Broward County, FL)
  5. Dr. Kristi Koenig (San Diego, CA)
  6. Dr. Renee Salas (Boston, MA)
  7. Drs. Andre Sofair and William Chavey (New Haven, CT, and Ann Arbor, MI)
  8. Dr. Comilla Sasson (volunteering in New York City)
  9. Dr. John Jernigan (Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)
  10. Dr. Ivan Hung (Hong Kong)
  11. Dr. Steven Fishbane (metropolitan New York)
  12. Dr. Michael Gonzalez (Houston, TX)

Interested in additional podcasts? Check out Himmelfarb's Podcasts Research Guide!

Image by Bokskapet from Pixabay

Published on
Drs. Emily Smith and Heather Young

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown quite a lot of the problems the health sciences community is facing into sharp relief. Questions of equity, access, and resource allocation have all had their turn. While science communication has been a concern throughout the pandemic, the announcement that everyone 16 and older in the United States is now eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine has foregrounded the need to communicate efficiently and effectively with the general public. Drs. Emily Smith and Heather Young with the Milken School of Public Health have been working hard to communicate COVID-19 information to the general public since the beginning of the pandemic. I took this opportunity to speak with them about their experiences, and to ask their advice for how best to work with the public to combat misinformation and encourage those who might be vaccine hesitant to get vaccinated.

In early 2020, as the new SARS-CoV-2 virus spread around the globe, Dr. Smith noticed the questions her friends, family, and even strangers were posing on the internet. Often these were the same questions - what preventative measures can I take, what do I do if I or a family member think we have it, what is my risk, etc. Because the data and information were so new and this was a rapidly evolving situation, those without a health sciences background were encountering information that just wasn’t written for them. Even her fellow scientists were asking where information was coming from, since everything at this stage was coming from preprints and sourcing reliable numbers was vital. There was a clear need for someone to step in and help translate the science in a way anyone could understand, and to aggregate it into one central location that linked back to primary scientific literature. Thus, COVID-101.org was born. Dr. Smith and a few colleagues established the website as a resource they and their fellow science communicators could link to when asked these questions.

The backbone of COVID-101.org is its review process. Not only do scientists and experts write the articles answering questions and referencing primary scientific literature, their colleagues provide peer review before posting the articles. This is where Dr. Young comes in. Early on in the pandemic, Dr. Young gave a lecture to a group of medical students breaking down the basics of epidemiology. Dr. Smith had recently launched COVID-101.org, and sent out an email asking for contributions. Dr. Young adapted her lecture and submitted it, and she continued collaborating with the other volunteers working on COVID-101.org, both writing and reviewing posts. And that’s one of the key things to remember about COVID-101.org, that all of the contributors are volunteers. Everyone from epidemiologists to undergraduates to web developers, all are volunteering their time and talents. Both Drs. Smith and Young think of this as a silver lining - getting to connect with everyone working on the site, old colleagues and new.

As the pandemic progressed, Drs. Smith and Young saw the purpose of COVID-101.org shifting. In the early days, the site served as an aggregator, compiling information and responding to questions. Dr. Young recalls a specific pivotal moment in the evolution of the site: “When President Trump had his bleach injection moment, it was one of those times where five or six of us jumped on the Slack channel and were like ‘we have to get something out there, it has to be out there quick’... we kind of shifted gears from waiting for people to ask us stuff and decided that we needed to go put a message out there that we thought was important.” A little over a month later, COVID-101.org published a post on the social justice movement and why people may decide to protest during the pandemic, describing the “dual pandemic” of racial injustice and COVID-19. These two instances compelled COVID-101.org contributors to take a more active role in creating messaging and putting accurate information where the public could find it.

When they started working on COVID-101.org, neither Dr. Smith nor Dr. Young had extensive experience with science communication. Dr. Smith had some experience in her work with the Gates Foundation, translating scientific data and information for policy makers. Dr. Young, on the other hand, didn’t have any “formal” experience, though she believes teaching requires a similar mindset of distilling complex information in a way students can understand. I asked what they had learned through this process, and what advice they might have for others in the health sciences community who are trying to counter misinformation and, in particular, address vaccine hesitancy.

Both Dr. Smith and Dr. Young described two important things they’ve taken away from their work on COVID-101.org. First, you want to encourage people when they do ask a question. Let them know it’s a good thing that they have this question. Lead with that attitude, and people will be more receptive to your answer. Understand that the misinformation people encounter may have a kernel of truth in it. Acknowledge that, without dismissing their concerns or mocking whatever misinformation it is. As Dr. Young said, you have to “meet people where they are.” Have a conversation with them, rather than lecturing them. Frame the conversation as a way to equip them with information to come to their own decisions rather than convincing them one way or another. Second, you need to make your answer specific to a person’s life. Dr. Smith recalls one of the earliest posts on COVID-101.org: 

One of the first posts we put out before things were shut down was “no you shouldn’t go to a large gathering.” And the questions we got in response were things like “Can I go to this concert?” or “Can I go to this game?” These follow up questions that, to me, should have already been answered by the post. But it wasn’t specific enough, and it wasn’t specific to their life. As a scientist it feels kind of duplicative or I worry that it’s too much the same, but I think that’s one of the valuable ways that we can add here and same for anyone trying to communicate with other people.

Dr. Emily Smith

Dr. Young echoed this, describing the need to “repeat and repackage” for individuals. Everyone is approaching risk assessment and the pandemic with their own lived experiences. If we can make our information relevant to their experiences, it makes it easier for them to incorporate that information into their lives. A recent concept introduced on COVID-101.org, the risk budget, can help people situate the information they are getting within the context of their own life.

Not all of our work combating misinformation or vaccine hesitancy occurs with people on the internet, however. Quite often friends and family members will come to those of us who work in the health sciences with their questions, seeing us as a trusted and valuable source. While the information you’re providing doesn’t change, having that pre-existing relationship with someone can make it easier to encourage them to think critically about the misinformation they’ve encountered. Dr. Young describes telling friends and family “Well, okay, maybe you don’t trust the scientists in the lab, but you trust me, right? And I’m not going to tell you to do something that I legitimately would think is harmful.” Dr. Smith also sees the opportunity to give people the facts “within the context of their life.” You know these people and can tailor your response in a way that makes sense to them.

So how do we best communicate with our friends, family, and even strangers? It’s a difficult line to walk, and one that is becoming increasingly important as access to the COVID-19 vaccine expands. The best thing you can do is prepare yourself with readily available resources. Of course, COVID-101.org is an excellent place to start. If you can’t find an answer to your question, you can always ask them. Himmelfarb Library has also put together a Correcting Misinformation with Patients Research Guide. It has tons of resources, information on communication techniques, and even specifically addresses vaccine hesitancy. The Conversation: Between Us, About Us video series from the Kaiser Family Foundation and Black Coalition Against COVID is a living video library and a phenomenal resource for the black community featuring answers from black scientists, black doctors, and black nurses. While The Conversation's target audience is the black community, the information is clearly communicated and could be useful to others. NIH’s Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL) has some great resources focused on engaging communities most at risk. If you’re looking for continuing education (CE) opportunities, LearnToVaccinate.org has a number of CE activities related to patient communication. This is a pivotal moment for the health sciences community, and we as a whole need to be ready to answer questions empathetically and accurately. There has already been a great deal of progress and reason for optimism - over 50% of US adults have had at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Armed with these resources, we can meet the general public and encourage everyone to get fully vaccinated. And hopefully we can harness the tools and lessons learned from the pandemic and apply those to other areas of science communication. The more informed the public is the more we are all empowered to make the right decisions for our health and the health of our communities.

As always, if you have any questions you can reach us via email at himmelfarb@gwu.edu. If you’re interested in volunteering on the COVID-101.org project, reach out via the Ask Us page on the site.

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.