ABSTRACT Introduction: Telehealth has emerged as a promising supplementary modality in prenatal care. However, its impact on patient-provider communication (PPC), especially among pregnant women from underserved settings, requires comprehensive evaluation. This study examined the factors associated with the quality of patient-provider communication during the COVID-19 pandemic among pregnant telehealth users and non-users. Methods: Using a cross-sectional study design, 242 women were surveyed (response rate = 23%) regarding their experience with telehealth, quality of PPC, and experiences of discrimination during prenatal care. Multiple regression models were used to identify the factors associated with the quality of PPC during the COVID-19 pandemic. A sub-group analysis explored the factors associated with the quality of PPC separately among telehealth users and non-users. Results: The majority of the participants were on Medicaid (95%) and self-identified as Black/African American (57.3%). Regression analyses revealed a negative relationship between telehealth use during pregnancy and the quality of PPC (β = −1.13, P = 0.002). Irrespective of the telehealth use, the experience of discrimination was associated with poor quality of PPC among users (β = −3.47, P = .02) and non-users (β = −.78, P = .03), while adjusting for sociodemographic factors and social support during pregnancy. Discussion: While telehealth offers advantages like convenience, increased accessibility, and continuity of care, challenges in establishing effective PPC in virtual settings have emerged that emphasize the necessity for comprehensive provider training extending beyond technical competencies. The persistent issue of perceived discrimination, impacting PPC across both groups, underscores the necessity to rethink existing strategies of mandatory training to increase providers’ knowledge.

ABSTRACT In this commentary, we argue that health professionals can play a pivotal role in accelerating the adoption of public policies that will help communities, nations, and the world end fossil fuel pollution and rise to the challenges of climate change. We briefly describe our previously published research showing that communicating about fossil fuel pollution and the health relevance of climate change has many benefits in building public support for climate action. Most importantly, we make the case that because health professionals, especially medical doctors and other clinicians, are highly trusted, we collectively have a unique opportunity to bring people together across the political continuum to have constructive dialogues about the intertwined problems of fossil fuel pollution and climate change and what to do about them – even in the current hyper-partisan environment.

ABSTRACT Background: With the COVID-19 pandemic, social isolation, and information search have increased dramatically. This increased search for information about the Coronavirus, called infodemic, was greatly affected by fake news and information without scientific evidence. This article aimed to assess the infodemic amid the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with sociodemographic and pandemic-related variables, as well as describe the main sources from which people obtained information about COVID-19. Methods: A cross-sectional population-based study was performed in Criciúma, Brazil. All individuals aged 18 years or older, residing in the 607 households systematically selected, were invited to answer the questionnaire. Infodemic and sources to seek information about COVID-19 were evaluated, as well as sociodemographic and pandemic-related variables. Adjusted Poisson regression with robust variance was used to evaluate associations. Results: A total of 863 individuals participated in the study. The prevalence of infodemic was 22.1%, and television was the main source of information (58.9%). Three groups presented a higher prevalence of infodemic: older adults (PR: 1.65), individuals with low income (PR: 2.97), and those who had had contact with someone infected (PR: 2.20). Conclusions: The findings reflect how some groups are more exposed to infodemic, and underline the responsibility and importance of intersectoral actions for dissemination of information about COVID-19.

ABSTRACT Background U.S. journalists embedded in rural and agricultural communities could adversely affect the health of residents if they avoid alerting and engaging their readers – farmers, ranchers, and community members – on environmental and health issues. We expected reporters would maintain community status quo and inaction by framing local water pollution and quality issues neutrally deemphasizing threats and solutions to maintain their own credibility as unbiased informational sources. Method In a content analysis of local water quality newspaper articles from five farming and cattle ranching states in the west central U.S. Midwest, we employed seven variables to investigate whether journalists practiced neutral, detached forms of journalism (i.e. dissemination versus interpretative role enactment, government-frame) as well as whether they deemphasized water pollution as a concerning issue (i.e. problem, threat), water pollution solutions, and readers’ efficaciousness. Results The results showed these journalists relied heavily on government-driven narratives presenting water quality issues from an impartial, straight reporting lens in which they primarily followed the journalistic dissemination role enactment, while neglecting to provide readers with interpretative, threat, efficacy, or solution’s information. Conclusions The study seeks to help communicators understand the information diet people living in this part of the country likely receive on environmental and health risks in the context of water pollution. Communicators seeking to reach and affect audiences in this region should understand local information practices to navigate how to craft culturally specific public health messages.

ABSTRACT Background The COVID-19 pandemic introduced a myriad of changes that negatively impacted resident physicians’ well-being. Communication from program leadership may mitigate resident stress during times of crisis, yet literature supporting this premise is scant, and best communication practices remain uncertain. This qualitative study aimed to identify stressors to residents and explore the influence of residency program leadership’s communication on emotional stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Informed by Kotter’s 8-step management model to support resident well-being, this qualitative study used grounded theory methods to interview 25 residents from three training programs (Pediatrics, Internal Medicine, and Medicine-Pediatrics) on a single academic medical campus from May-September 2020. Four investigators coded the data using the constant comparative analysis. Sampling continued until reaching thematic saturation. Codes were built using an iterative approach and organized into themes. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussion among investigators. Results Residents described increased stress levels, the all-consuming nature of COVID-19, mixed emotions about their role as healthcare providers, new coping mechanisms, and changes to their education and work environment that impacted stress. Communication from leadership to residents during the pandemic varied. Effective communication helped mitigate stress; perceived suboptimal communication exacerbated stress. Who was communicating, methods of communication, and content of communication influenced resident stress. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new stressors and challenges to residents. The perception of leadership communication played a critical role in mitigating or exacerbating resident stress. We propose a communication framework (“Who? What? Where? When? How?”) that residency leadership can utilize during times of crisis.

ABSTRACT Background Historical marginalisation and ongoing trust deficits in health and government systems shape present-day vaccine perceptions among marginalised communities. This paper sought to understand the role of trust in decision-making about COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the transgender and disability communities in India. Methods Using a participatory approach we interviewed 24 community representatives, identifying themselves as transgender individuals or as persons with disability, and 21 key informants such as vaccine programme managers, vaccine providers, and community advocates. We undertook an inductive thematic analysis of the data using a socio-ecological model. Results Fear of side effects in relation to specific needs of the two communities and mistrust of systems involved in vaccination shaped four different pathways for vaccine decision-making. Mistrust of systems was influenced by past negative experiences with the health system, creating contexts in which information and misinformation are shared and interpreted. Participants negotiated their doubts about safety and mistrust of systems by interacting with different sources of influence showing patterns of decision-making that are dynamic, context-dependent, and intersectional. Conclusion These findings will help in determining the content, strategies and approaches to equitable vaccine communication for these two communities. The two communities ought to be included in vaccine trials. Vaccine information must respond to the specific needs of these two communities which could be enabled by collaboration and engagement with community members and influencers. Finally, long-term investment towards the needs of marginalised communities is vital to dismantle cycles of marginalisation and distrust and in turn improve vaccine acceptance and uptake.

ABSTRACT We examine the provision of elective pronunciation services, such as intelligibility enhancement, to non-native speakers by speech language pathologists (SLPs). Practices associated with the ‘modification’ of non-native accent raise significant professionalism questions about bias for SLPs and healthcare professionals. These questions arise partly due to the socio-cultural context in which SLPs practice and their clients live, and the relational nature of communication. We argue that due to the ambiguity inherent in accent modification practices, SLPs must weigh a variety of considerations before determining the circumstances in which such services are professionally acceptable. Our argument is rooted in consideration of the complex nature of professionalism related to communication. After surveying potentially relevant models from other healthcare professions and finding them wanting, we support our position in light of current literature on topics such as accounts of functionality. We conclude by generalizing our anti-bias recommendations to interprofessional healthcare professionalism.

ABSTRACT Background and goal: Marginalized patients often feel unwelcome in healthcare. The concept of culturally safe healthcare (CSH) represents an important paradigm shift from provider control to patients who feel safe voicing health concerns and believe that they are heard by providers. This study has five goals: review works describing CSH, identify CSH themes, describe provider behaviors associated with CSH, describe interventions, and discuss how health communication can advance CSH. Methods: A scoping review was conducted for articles published between 2019 and 2023 following modified PRISMA guidelines. Online databases included Pubmed (Medline), CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Redalyc. Thematic analysis was also conducted. Results: Twenty-one articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified and analyzed. Of these, five explained features of CSH, four were empirical studies, seven were content analyses, and five were interventions. Five themes were identified including (1) how patients perceive CSH, (2) sociocultural determinants of health inequity, (3) mistrust of care providers, (4) issues with the biomedical model of healthcare, and (5) the importance of provider-patient allyship. Care provider communication behaviors fostering CSH were discussed. Three CSH interventions were highlighted. Finally, there was a discussion for how health communication scholars can contribute to CSH. Conclusions: CSH offers a paradigm shift from provider control to marginalized patients’ experience of patient-provider communication. Recommendations for how health communication scholars can contribute to the implementation of CSH included developing guiding theories and measurement, evaluation of CSH outcomes, and conducting focus groups with patients to assess the meaning of cultural safety.