Background The COVID-19 pandemic impacted daily routines for a majority of the population, with implications for their health behaviors. Racial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. The novel COVID-19 Behavioral Questionnaire (CoBQ) was developed in Fall 2020 to provide a means to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States population. The study utilized behavioral domains to determine which demographic groups reported that they were made the most vulnerable during Fall-Winter 2020-2021 of the pandemic. Objectives The study aimed to further validate and test the CoBQ in varied US regions and compare the scores obtained from three states, California, Ohio, and Illinois. Methods A prospective, multi-site survey-based study was designed to further validate and test the 17-item CoBQ in varied populations. Respondents included patients on routine visits at each pharmacy or clinical site who agreed to complete the survey online via Qualtrics. Data analyses included descriptive statistics, psychometric testing, and comparison of groups using Analysis of Variance. Results Completed surveys (n = 507) between October 2021 and March 2021 were analyzed. Respondents were mostly female, white, and had some college education. The CoBQ showed improved reliability compared with previous testing and strong construct validity through factor analysis. Overall scores were similar between three states. The most impacted groups included those who reported within the 18-49 age group, a yearly household income <$50 000, or education up to high school. Conclusions The CoBQ is the first validated tool to measure the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health behaviors. Results could serve as a baseline to address the most vulnerable patient groups and support identified behavioral needs during a similar pandemic situation.

Lyme borreliosis (LB) can manifest as a localized infection or, if left untreated, disseminated disease. This analysis used Patient-Reported Outcome tools to assess general health, fatigue, pain, and cognitive function in patients with localized or disseminated LB, compared with age- and site-matched controls without LB. All participants were enrolled in the Burden of Lyme Disease (BOLD) study; LB cases were assessed at 3 time points: the enrollment visit, and two follow-up visits conducted within 10 months of enrollment. Controls were evaluated at 2 time points: the enrollment contact and a follow-up contact 16–18 months post-enrollment. Symptom severity and general health quality between groups were compared using two-tailed Student’s t-tests and multivariate regression analyses. Disseminated LB cases reported greater fatigue and pain than localized LB (disseminated LB fatigue scores: 4.1, 3.7, and 3.5 at Visits 1, 2, and 3, respectively vs. localized LB: 2.9, 3.0, and 2.9; disseminated LB pain scores: 2.5, 1.6, and 1.3 vs. localized LB: 0.9, 0.6, and 0.8) and controls (fatigue score: 3.2; pain score: 1.0). Disseminated LB was also associated with reduced health-related quality of life. The results of this study indicate that health-related quality of life may vary by disease stage and that patients with disseminated disease showed persistent impairment during the acute phase and at 10-month follow-up.

Up to 10% of patients with Lyme borreliosis (LB) will experience symptoms that fulfill the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) criteria of post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS). This study assesses PTLDS in the Burden of Lyme Disease (BOLD) study through clinical assessment (“PTLDS Assessed by Clinicians”) and by post hoc evaluation of patient-reported outcomes, including the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Fatigue Severity Scale, and Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (“PTLDS Assessed by Questionnaire”). Among 242 LB cases who completed antibiotic treatment and had objective manifestations stabilized or resolved, 99 (40.9%) reported ≥1 symptom of fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, or cognitive impairment 10 months after diagnosis. Fifteen (6.2%) cases met the PTLDS criteria assessed by either clinicians or predefined questionnaire severity thresholds; four (1.7%) met both. PTLDS cases assessed by questionnaires and LB cases with persistent symptoms both reported greater symptom severity and poorer physical functioning than PTLDS cases assessed by clinicians. These exploratory findings suggest that clinician- and questionnaire-based assessments may identify partially different subsets of patients with PTLDS and either method could underestimate the proportion of patients with PTLDS.

Given the complexities surrounding vaccine acceptance of COVID-19 and other vaccines, it is important to determine the underlying health beliefs of patients in order to bridge gaps and promote vaccine confidence. With pharmacies as key hubs for vaccinations and vaccine conversations, examining patient perspectives through the lens of community pharmacy may provide a targeted insight into their patient populations. The primary objectives of this study were to measure COVID-19 vaccine intention and compare vaccine acceptance at pharmacies and clinics between California and Ohio. The secondary objectives included subgroup comparisons of vaccine intention and vaccine acceptance based on demographic characteristics. A previously validated survey instrument (5C survey tool) was administered at pharmacy sites in California and Ohio to examine respondents’ vaccine acceptance (confidence, complacency, constrains, calculation, and collective responsibility). Additional items were added to capture flu and COVID-19 vaccine intention. Reliability and confirmatory factor analysis were completed for the 13-item 5C. Comparisons were made between sites and within different demographic groups. Good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.768) was found, with nearly all items loading on their hypothesized domains. Respondents from Ohio had significantly higher complacency and constraints domain scores. Highest acceptance was revealed in females, individuals with a Master’s degree or higher, and individuals with the intention to receive a flu vaccine. The adapted 5C is a reasonable tool to measure vaccine intention in English-speaking populations in the US. Certain demographic groups may have lower vaccine acceptance; pharmacists could consider implementing a tool, such as the 5C tool, to identify low acceptance. Given that the 5C tool gathers information on different domains of vaccine acceptance, healthcare professionals could utilize these results to improve trust and vaccine confidence in their patient populations; focused conversations concerning any of the respective domains could best address individual concerns and barriers about vaccinations, notably the COVID-19 and flu vaccines.