As the nature of work becomes more complex, teams have become necessary to ensure effective functioning within organizations. The healthcare industry is no exception. As such, the prevalence of training interventions designed to optimize teamwork in this industry has increased substantially over the last 10 years (Weaver, Dy, & Rosen, 2014). Using Kirkpatrick's (1956, 1996) training evaluation framework, we conducted a meta-analytic examination of healthcare team training to quantify its effectiveness and understand the conditions under which it is most successful. Results demonstrate that healthcare team training improves each of Kirkpatrick's criteria (reactions, learning, transfer, results; d = .37 to .89). Second, findings indicate that healthcare team training is largely robust to trainee composition, training strategy, and characteristics of the work environment, with the only exception being the reduced effectiveness of team training programs that involve feedback. As a tertiary goal, we proposed and found empirical support for a sequential model of healthcare team training where team training affects results via learning, which leads to transfer, which increases results. We find support for this sequential model in the healthcare industry (i.e., the current meta-analysis) and in training across all industries (i.e., using meta-analytic estimates from Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003), suggesting the sequential benefits of training are not unique to medical teams. Ultimately, this meta-analysis supports the expanded use of team training and points toward recommendations for optimizing its effectiveness within healthcare settings. (PsycINFO Database Record

Background: Engagement is essential for the effectiveness of digital behavior change interventions. Existing systematic reviews examining hypertension self-management interventions via mobile apps have primarily focused on intervention efficacy and app usability. Engagement in the prevention or management of hypertension is largely unknown. Objective: This systematic review explores the definition and role of engagement in hypertension-focused mobile health (mHealth) interventions, as well as how determinants of engagement (ie, tailoring and interactivity) have been implemented. Methods: A systematic review of mobile app interventions for hypertension self-management targeting adults, published from 2013 to 2020, was conducted. A total of 21 studies were included in this systematic review. Results: The engagement was defined or operationalized as a microlevel concept, operationalized as interaction with the interventions (ie, frequency of engagement, time or duration of engagement with the program, and intensity of engagement). For all 3 studies that tested the relationship, increased engagement was associated with better biomedical outcomes (eg, blood pressure change). Interactivity was limited in digital behavior change interventions, as only 7 studies provided 2-way communication between users and a health care professional, and 9 studies provided 1-way communication in possible critical conditions; that is, when abnormal blood pressure values were recorded, users or health care professionals were notified. The tailoring of interventions varied at different aspects, from the tailoring of intervention content (including goals, patient education, advice and feedback from health professionals, reminders, and motivational messages) to the tailoring of intervention dose and communication mode. Tailoring was carried out in a number of ways, considering patient characteristics such as goals, preferences, disease characteristics (eg, hypertension stage and medication list), disease self-management experience levels, medication adherence rate, and values and beliefs. Conclusions: Available studies support the importance of engagement in intervention effectiveness as well as the essential roles of patient factors in tailoring, interactivity, and engagement. A patient-centered engagement framework for hypertension self-management using mHealth technology is proposed here, with the intent of facilitating intervention design and disease self-management using mHealth technology.

Police officers, firefighters, and paramedics are on the front lines of crises and emergencies, placing them at high risk of COVID-19 infection. A deeper understanding of the challenges facing first responders during the COVID-19 pandemic is necessary to better support this important workforce. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 first responders during the COVID-19 pandemic, asking about the impact of COVID-19. Data collected from our study interviews revealed that, despite large numbers of COVID-19 infections among the staff of police and fire departments, some—but not all—first responders were concerned about COVID-19. A similar divide existed within this group regarding whether or not to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Many first responders reported frustration over COVID-19 information because of inconsistencies across sources, misinformation on social media, and the impact of politics. In addition, first responders described increased stress due to the COVID-19 pandemic caused by factors such as the fear of COVID exposure during emergency responses, concerns about infecting family members, and frustration surrounding new work policies. Our findings provide insight into the impact of COVID-19 on first responders and highlight the importance of providing resources for education about COVID-19 risks and vaccination, as well as for addressing first responders’ mental health and well-being.

Background: Immunizations for emergency medical services (EMS) professionals during pandemics are an important tool to increase the safety of the workforce as well as their patients. The purpose of this study was to better understand EMS professionals’ decisions to receive or decline a COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationally certified EMS professionals (18–85 years) in April 2021. Participants received an electronic survey asking whether they received a vaccine, why or why not, and their associated beliefs using three validated scales: perceived risk of COVID-19, medical mistrust, and confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine. Data were merged with National Registry dataset demographics. Analyses included descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression (OR, 95% CI). Multivariate imputation by chained equations was used for missingness. Results: A total of 2,584 respondents satisfied inclusion criteria (response rate = 14%). Overall, 70% of EMS professionals were vaccinated. Common reasons for vaccination among vaccinated respondents were to protect oneself (76%) and others (73%). Common reasons for non-vaccination among non-vaccinated respondents included concerns about vaccine safety (53%) and beliefs that vaccination was not necessary (39%). Most who had not received the vaccine did not plan to get it in the future (84%). Hesitation was most frequently related to wanting to see how the vaccine was working for others (55%). Odds of COVID-19 vaccination were associated with demographics including age (referent 51 years: 2.22, 1.64–3.01), male sex (1.26, 1.01–1.58), residing in an urban/suburban area (referent rural; 1.36, 1.08–1.70), advanced education (referent GED/high school and below; bachelor’s and above: 1.72, 1.19–2.47), and working at a hospital (referent fire-based agency; 1.53, 1.04–2.24). Additionally, vaccination odds were significantly higher with greater perceived risk of COVID-19 (2.05, 1.68–2.50), and higher vaccine confidence (2.84, 2.40–3.36). Odds of vaccination were significantly lower with higher medical mistrust (0.54, 0.46–0.63). Conclusion: Despite vaccine availability, not all EMS professionals had been vaccinated. The decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with demographics, beliefs regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine, and medical mistrust. Efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Background: Cancer survivors are at greater risk for cardiovascular‐related mortality. Mobile health (mHealth) is an increasingly prevalent strategy for health promotion, but whether it consistently improves cardiorespiratory outcomes after a cancer diagnosis is unknown. We sought to determine the effectiveness of mHealth fitness/physical activity interventions on cardiorespiratory fitness outcomes among cancer patients and survivors.Methods: Leveraging MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified studies through May 2023. Included studies provided a quantitative evaluation of an mHealth intervention in a primary or secondary capacity on cardiorespiratory fitness (6‐minute walk test, VO₂max, 3‐minute step test, or systolic blood pressure; or any mention of cardiac measure) and were meta‐analyzed (using a random effects model) if they were a randomized controlled trial with sufficient quantitative information. Four coders were involved in applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, coding using a standardized data extraction sheet, and assessing study quality, with each study coded by at least two.Results: Of 656 articles, nine (n = 392) met systematic review inclusion criteria (mean age range 19–62 years, 71.9% female, 60.9% breast cancer). Interventions included mobile apps (k = 6), smartwatches (k = 2), or a smartwatch plus a supplemental web/mobile/tablet app (k = 1); median duration of mHealth‐use was 12 weeks. Seven (n = 341) fit criteria for meta‐analysis. mHealth was associated with improved cardiorespiratory fitness (d = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.07–0.60) compared to a control group. Relationships remained after accounting for lipid‐based outcomes (d = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.03–0.56). There was no evidence for heterogeneity or publication‐bias.Conclusions: mHealth exercise interventions appear to be a viable strategy for improving cardiorespiratory fitness after a cancer diagnosis.