Objective: Understanding the challenges public health workers have faced is critical to reinforcing, revitalizing, and strengthening the public health workforce. We measured and identified the level and causes of psychological distress among public health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York State. Methods: We used a knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors survey to ask public health workers at local health departments about their experiences working in public health during the pandemic, including questions relating to harassment from the public, workload, and work/life balance. We used the Kessler-6 scale to measure participants' psychological distress using a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater psychological distress. We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted a regression analysis to determine the factors associated with public health worker psychological distress, and we coded open-ended comments for qualitative analysis. Results: During September 7-20, 2021, 231 public health workers from 38 local health departments completed the survey. Respondents were predominantly non-Hispanic White (89.6%), female (82.1%), full-time employees (95.1%), and located in Upstate New York. On a bivariate level, the strongest predictor of distress was job satisfaction (-0.388), followed closely by COVID-19 fatigue (0.386) and feeling bullied or harassed by the public (0.331). In the regression analysis, 2 additional factors were associated with distress: considering leaving their job due to the pandemic and concerns about exposure. Themes from the qualitative analysis strongly supported these findings. Conclusions: Understanding the challenges public health workers have faced during the pandemic is critical to inform the actions needed-stronger state laws protecting against harassment, workforce incentives, and commensurate funding-to reinforce and revitalize our frontline public health workforce.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is context specific and highly dynamic in the United States. The objective of this study was to examine the underlying causes of COVID-19 vaccine use and hesitancy among students at two colleges in Central New York (USA) in order to better understand how to promote vaccination in this demographic. A Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs & Behaviors survey was designed to measure the relationship between gender, political ideology, media consumption, beliefs, mental health and anxiety, and pandemic-related behaviors. The survey was distributed by email to students in April 2021. Of 8,894 eligible respondents, 627 students completed the survey. Structural Equation Modeling was utilized to explore both direct and indirect relationships. Modeling suggests that the effect of political ideology (being more conservative) is to promote the consumption of right wing news, which in turn tends to increase vaccine hesitancy. Conservative political ideology does not directly lead to vaccine hesitancy, but it does encourage the consumption of news from sources that promote fear and hesitation about the vaccines. News sources significantly contribute to vaccine attitudes among this demographic.

Abstract Importance There is a dearth of comparative immunologic durability data after COVID-19 vaccinations. Objective To compare antibody responses and vaccine effectiveness 8.4 months post-primary COVID-19 vaccination. Design Setting and Participants: In this cohort study of 903 healthcare workers who completed surveys about baseline characteristics and COVID-19 vaccine/infection history, 647 had antibody assays completed and were included herein. Exposure COVID-19 vaccination with mRNA-1273 (n=387); BNT162b2 (n=212); or Ad26.COV2.S (n=10); unvaccinated (n=10); or boosted (n=28). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was IgG anti-spike titer. Secondary/tertiary outcomes included IgG spike receptor-binding domain competitive antibody blocking ELISA pseudoneutralization against the USA-WA1/2020 strain, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection. Antibody levels were compared using ANOVA and multiple linear regression. Results Mean age was 49.7, 75.3% were female, and mean comorbidities/patient was 0.7. Baseline variables were balanced (p>.05) except for immunosuppression (higher in boosted, p=.047), prior COVID-19 infections (higher with Ad26.COV2.S and unvaccinated, p<.001), and time since primary vaccination (higher with mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 than Ad26.COV2.S, p<.001). Unadjusted median (IQR) IgG anti-spike titers (AU/mL) were 1539.5 (876.7-2626.7) for mRNA-1273, 751.2 (422.0-1381.5) for BNT162b2, 451.6 (103.0-2396.7) for Ad26.COV2.S, 113.4 (3.7-194.0) for unvaccinated, and 31898.8 (21347.1-45820.1) for boosted (mRNA-1273 vs. BNT162b2, p<.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs. unvaccinated, p<.006; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs. boosted, p<.001; all other comparisons, p>.05). Unadjusted median (IQR) pseudoneutralization percentages were 90.9% (80.1-95.0) for mRNA-1273, 77.2% (59.1-89.9) for BNT162b2, 57.9% (36.6-95.8) for Ad26.COV2.S, 40.1% (21.7-60.6) for unvaccinated, and 96.4% (96.1-96.6) for boosted (mRNA-1273 vs. BNT162b2, p<.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs. unvaccinated, p<.028; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs. boosted, p<.001; all other comparisons, p>.05). Adjusted anti-spike and pseudoneutralization comparisons of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 showed similar patterns (p<.001). Vaccine effectiveness was 87-89% for mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and boosted, and 33% for Ad26.COV2.S; no group differences were statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance Durability of antibody responses 8.4 months after COVID-19 primary vaccination was significantly higher with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2, however, vaccine effectiveness was equivalent. Antibody responses and vaccine effectiveness were lower but not significantly different for Ad26.COV2.S; given statistical uncertainty in the small Ad26.COV2.S group, clinically important effects cannot be excluded.

OBJECTIVES:There are limited comparative immunologic durability data post COVID-19 vaccinations. METHODS:Approximately 8.4 months after primary COVID-19 vaccination, 647 healthcare workers completed surveys about COVID-19 vaccinations/infections and blood draws. The groups included participants vaccinated with mRNA-1273 (n = 387), BNT162b2 (n = 212), or Ad26.COV2.S (n = 10) vaccines; unvaccinated participants (n = 10); and participants who received a booster dose (n = 28). The primary outcome was immunoglobin anti-spike titer. Secondary/tertiary outcomes included neutralizing antibodies (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based pseudoneutralization) and vaccine effectiveness (VE). Antibody levels were compared using analysis of variance and linear regression. RESULTS:Mean age was 49.7 and 75.3% of the participants were female. Baseline variables were balanced except for immunosuppression, previous COVID-19 infection, and post-primary vaccination time. Unadjusted median (interquartile range [IQR]) anti-spike titers (AU/ml) were 1539.5 (876.7-2626.7) for mRNA-1273, 751.2 (422.0-1381.5) for BNT162b2, 451.6 (103.0-2396.7) for Ad26.COV2.S, 113.4 (3.7-194.0) for unvaccinated participants, and 31898.8 (21347.1-45820.1) for participants administered with booster dose (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, P <.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs unvaccinated, P <.006; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs boosted, P <.001). Unadjusted median (IQR) pseudoneutralization was as follows: 90.9% (80.1-95.0) for mRNA-1273, 77.2% (59.1-89.9) for BNT162b2, 57.9% (36.6-95.8) for Ad26.COV2.S, 40.1% (21.7-60.6) for unvaccinated, and 96.4% (96.1-96.6) for participants administered with booster dose (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, P <.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs unvaccinated, P <.028; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs boosted, P <.001). VE was 87-89% for participants administered mRNA-1273 vaccine, BNT162b2 vaccine, and booster dose, and 33% for Ad26.COV2.S (none significantly different). CONCLUSION:Antibody responses 8.4 months after primary vaccination were significantly higher with mRNA-1273 than those observed with BNT162b2.

The past two decades have seen unprecedented student demand for global health education through experiential and engaged learning within institutions of higher education in the United States. This demand created a need for innovative institutional partnerships. Since 2007, faculty from Cornell University's Global Health Program and Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College (KCMUCo) have worked together to design, implement, and evaluate an innovative experiential learning program in global health and development policy. Since its inception, 176 Cornell undergraduates and 188 KCMUCo medical students have successfully engaged in the policy case study collaborative program and course, leading to the development of 75 policy case studies. This long-term partnership between Cornell and KCMUCo has led to an innovative cross-cultural teaching model, funding support, professional presentations for students and faculty, a visiting scholars program at Cornell, and new avenues for research and collaboration. Fifteen years of sustained partnership has required the navigation of several unique and complex challenges, providing the opportunity to reimagine and strengthen this program and partnership. The objective of this article is to share a powerful program model for global health training and education, and discuss the challenges, successes, and lessons learned through this continued collaboration.

Despite a growing consensus on the importance of integrating sex and gender in health research, research across disciplines continues to be conducted and reported without a gender focus. Research ethics committees (RECs) can play a particularly powerful role in identifying the gender gaps at an early stage of the development of research protocols. Their role is missing in the dialogue related to improving gender awareness and analysis in health research. A scoping review was conducted to examine the extent to which RECs discuss and consider the inclusion and analysis of sex and gender in health research and to examine the literature regarding the gender balance of RECs. The limited literature around gender and research ethics reveals the power and potential of RECs to ensure that gender dimensions are thoughtfully included in health research, and sheds light on the gaps that exist. These include an under-representation of women on RECs, a lack of awareness of the importance of gender-related aspects in health research and a paucity of gender-related training to RECs. Guidelines such as the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines are required for RECs to strengthen the ways in which health research is gendered from conception of a research protocol to its publication.