Risk Factors,Presentation, and Course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in a Large,Academic Long-Term Care Facility

ObjectiveTo describe clinical characteristics and risk factors associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in long-stay nursing home residents.Design and ParticipantsRetrospective cohort study (March 16, 2020 to May 8, 2020).SettingAcademic long-term chronic care facility (Boston, MA).ParticipantsLong-term care residents.MethodsPatient characteristics and clinical symptoms were obtained via electronic medical records and Minimum Data Set. Staff residence was inferred by zip codes. COVID-19 infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction testing using nasopharyngeal swabs. Residents were followed until discharge from facility, death, or up to 21 days. Risks of COVID-19 infection were modeled by generalized estimating equation to estimate the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of patient characteristics and staff community of residence.ResultsOverall 146 of 389 (37.5%) long-stay residents tested positive for COVID-19. At the time of positive test, 66 of 146 (45.5%) residents were asymptomatic. In the subsequent illness course, the most common symptom was anorexia (70.8%), followed by delirium (57.6%). During follow-up, 44 (30.1%) of residents with COVID-19 died. Mortality increased with frailty (16.7% in pre-frail, 22.2% in moderately frail, and 50.0% in frail; P < .001). The proportion of residents infected with COVID-19 varied across the long-term care units (range: 0%‒90.5%). In adjusted models, male sex (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.07, 3.05), bowel incontinence (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.10, 3.52), and staff residence remained significant predictors of COVID-19. For every 10% increase in the proportion of staff living in a high prevalence community, the risk of testing positive increased by 6% (95% CI 1.04, 1.08).Conclusions and ImplicationsAmong long-term care residents diagnosed with COVID-19, nearly one-half were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. Predictors of COVID-19 infection included male sex, bowel incontinence, and staff residence in a community with a high burden of COVID-19. Universal testing of patients and staff in communities with high COVID-19 rates is essential to mitigate outbreaks.     

Risk of COVID-19 and major adverse clinical outcomes among people with disabilities in South Korea

BackgroundEvidence regarding the risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the major adverse clinical outcomes of COVID-19 among people with disabilities (PwDs) is scarce.ObjectiveThis study investigated the association of disability status with the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test positivity and the risk of major adverse clinical outcomes among participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.MethodsThis study included all patients (n = 8070) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and individuals without COVID-19 (n = 121,050) in South Korea from January 1 to May 30, 2020. The study variables included officially registered disability status from the government, SARS-CoV-2 test positivity, and major adverse clinical outcomes of COVID-19 (admission to the intensive care unit, invasive ventilation, or death).ResultsThe study participants included 129,120 individuals (including 7261 PwDs), of whom 8070 (6.3%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, PwDs had an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 test positivity compared with people without disabilities (odds ratio [OR]: 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24–1.48). Among participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, PwDs were associated with an increased risk of major adverse clinical outcomes from COVID-19 compared to those without disabilities (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.11–1.86).ConclusionsPwDs had an increased risk of COVID-19 and major adverse clinical outcomes of COVID-19 compared with people without disabilities. Given the higher vulnerability of PwDs to COVID-19, tailored policy and management to protect against the risk of COVID-19 are required.     

Association of Sources of COVID-19 Information with Vaccine Uptake,Preventive Behaviors,and Perceived Severity of COVID-19

ObjectiveTo investigate the association of using informal sources and reliance on multiple sources of information with actual COVID-19 vaccine uptake, the number of doses of vaccine received, COVID-19 testing, essential preventive measures, and perceived severity of COVID-19.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional study.Setting and ParticipantsOur study sample consisted of 9584 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries, representing a weighted 50,029,030 beneficiaries from the Winter 2021 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey COVID-19 Supplement.MethodsTwo key independent variables were whether a respondent relied on a formal source (ie, traditional news, government guidance, or health care providers) or an informal source (ie, social media, Internet, or friends/family) the most for the COVID-19 information and the total number of information sources a respondent relied on.ResultsCompared with beneficiaries relying on formal sources of information, those relying on informal sources of information were less likely to receive COVID-19 vaccine (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56–0.75) and COVID-19 testing (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74–0.98), to engage in preventive behaviors (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50–0.74), to have high perception of COVID-19 severity, and were more likely to be unvaccinated vs 2 doses of vaccine (relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.41–1.91). Relying on more information sources was significantly associated with higher odds of actual vaccine uptake (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17–1.26), COVID-19 testing (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07–1.15), engagement of essential preventive behaviors (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.25–1.42), having high perception of COVID-19 severity, and with lower likelihood of being unvaccinated vs 2 doses of vaccine (RRR, 0.82; 0.79–0.85).Conclusions and ImplicationsThe COVID-19 pandemic has made communicating information about coronavirus more important than ever. Our findings suggest that information from formal sources with expertise and more balanced sources of information were key to effective communication to prevent from COVID-19 infection among older adults.     

COVID-19 positivity rates,hospitalizations and mortality of adults with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities in Ontario,Canada

BackgroundAcross and within countries there is a need to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted populations of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).ObjectiveRates of COVID-19 positivity for adults with IDD, including Down syndrome, relative to adults without IDD in Ontario, Canada were compared. Health profiles and case-based rates of hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and mortality within 30 days of testing positively were compared for those with IDD, including Down syndrome, versus those without IDD.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study linked health administrative databases using unique encoded identifiers to describe population-level COVID-19 positivity, related hospital use and mortality from January 15, 2020 to January 10, 2021. Incidence rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.ResultsRelative to adults without IDD, COVID-19 positivity rates were 1.28 times higher for adults with IDD and 1.42 times higher for adults with Down syndrome.Compared to adults without IDD, adults with IDD were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized following COVID-19 (RR:2.21 (95%CI: 1.93,2.54)) and to die (RR:2.23 (95%CI: 1.86,2.67). These RRs were greater for adults under 65. For adults with Down syndrome, mortality rates were 6.59 (95%CI: 4.51,9.62) times higher than those without IDD.DiscussionIn Ontario, Canada, hospitalization and mortality rates associated with COVID-19 are higher for adults with IDD than other adults. These findings should inform vaccination strategies that often prioritize older adults in the general population resulting in people with IDD, who are often in younger age groups, being overlooked.     

Association between social vulnerability and COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and vaccination in pregnant and postpartum individuals

ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of community-level social vulnerability with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination among pregnant and postpartum individuals.MethodsProspective cohort study assessing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant and postpartum individuals. We performed a baseline survey on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from 03/22/21 to 04/02/21, and a follow-up survey on COVD-19 vaccination status 3- to 6-months later. The primary exposure was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention SVI (Social Vulnerability Index), measured in quartiles. Higher SVI quartiles indicated greater community-level social vulnerability with the lowest quartile (quartile 1) as the referent group. The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on the baseline survey (uncertainty or refusal of the vaccine), and the secondary outcome was self-report of not being vaccinated (unvaccinated) for COVID-19 on the follow-up survey.ResultsOf 456 assessed individuals, 46% reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on the baseline survey; and of 290 individuals (290/456, 64%) who completed the follow-up survey, 48% (140/290) were unvaccinated. The frequency of baseline vaccine hesitancy ranged from 25% in quartile 1 (low SVI) to 68% in quartile 4 (high SVI), and being unvaccinated at follow-up ranged from 29% in quartile 1 to 77% in quartile 4. As social vulnerability increased, the risk of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy at baseline increased (quartile 2 aRR (adjusted relative risk): 1.46; 95% CI:0.98 to 2.19; quartile 3 aRR: 1.86; 95% CI:1.28 to 2.71; and quartile 4 aRR: 2.24; 95% CI:1.56 to 3.21), as did the risk of being unvaccinated at follow-up (quartile 2 aRR: 1.00; 95% CI:0.66 to 1.51; quartile 3 aRR: 1.68; 95% CI:1.17 to 2.41; and quartile 4 aRR: 1.82; 95% CI:1.30 to 2.56).ConclusionsPregnant and postpartum individuals living in an area with higher community-level social vulnerability were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and subsequently to be unvaccinated at follow-up.     

Neighborhood Social Cohesion and Inequalities in COVID-19 Diagnosis Rates by Area-Level Black/African American Racial Composition

Geographic inequalities in COVID-19 diagnosis are now well documented. However, we do not sufficiently know whether inequalities are related to social characteristics of communities, such as collective engagement. We tested whether neighborhood social cohesion is associated with inequalities in COVID-19 diagnosis rate and the extent the association varies across neighborhood racial composition. We calculated COVID-19 diagnosis rates in Philadelphia, PA, per 10,000 general population across 46 ZIP codes, as of April 2020. Social cohesion measures were from the Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Health Survey, 2018. We estimated Poisson regressions to quantify associations between social cohesion and COVID-19 diagnosis rate, testing a multiplicative interaction with Black racial composition in the neighborhood, which we operationalize via a binary indicator of ZIP codes above vs. below the city-wide average (41%) Black population. Two social cohesion indicators were significantly associated with COVID-19 diagnosis. Associations varied across Black neighborhood racial composition (p <0.05 for the interaction test). In ZIP codes with ≥41% of Black people, higher collective engagement was associated with an 18% higher COVID-19 diagnosis rate (IRR=1.18, 95%CI=1.11, 1.26). In contrast, areas with <41% of Black people, higher engagement was associated with a 26% lower diagnosis rate (IRR=0.74, 95%CI=0.67, 0.82). Neighborhood social cohesion is associated with both higher and lower COVID-19 diagnosis rates, and the extent of associations varies across Black neighborhood racial composition. We recommend some strategies for reducing inequalities based on the segmentation model within the social cohesion and public health intervention framework.     

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Obstetric Interventions at a Public Hospital

IntroductionIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems quickly implemented changes in care delivery with a goal of balancing patient-focused obstetric care with the need to protect pregnant persons and health care providers from infection. Yet, there is no consensus within the scientific community on the impact these measures have on obstetric outcomes in vulnerable populations. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rates of obstetric procedures and severe maternal morbidity (SMM) among births at an urban safety net institution.MethodsWe used an interrupted time series design to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing monthly rates of labor induction, cesarean births (overall and among nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex births), operative vaginal births, and SMM among births occurring at a public hospital before (March 1, 2016, to February 29, 2020) and during (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsThere were 10,714 and 2,736 births in the prepandemic and postpandemic periods, respectively. Overall, the rates of obstetric interventions and SMM were constant over the two time periods. There were no significant differences in rates of labor induction (42% during prepandemic period vs. 45% during pandemic period; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93–1.34), operative vaginal births (5% vs. 6%; RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.88–1.76), cesarean births (28% vs. 33%; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94–1.28), or nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean births (24% vs. 31%; RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.92–1.74). Rates of SMM (7% vs. 8%; RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.86–1.65) were also unchanged.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that the rapid implementation of measures to reduce viral transmission in the labor and delivery setting did not materially affect routine clinical management or rates of serious maternal complications.     

Effectiveness of adenovirus type 5 vectored and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic COVID-19, COVID-19 pneumonia,and severe COVID-19 caused by the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant: Evidence from an outbreak in Yunnan,China, 2021

BackgroundIn partial response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, countries around the world are conducting large-scale vaccination campaigns. Real-world estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant are still limited. An outbreak in Ruili city of China provided an opportunity to evaluate VE against the Delta variant of two types of COVID-19 vaccines in use in China and globally – inactivated (CoronaVac and BBIBP-CorV) and adenovirus type 5 vectored (Convidecia) vaccines.MethodsWe estimated VE using a retrospective cohort study two months after the Ruili vaccination campaign (median: 63 days). Close contacts of infected people (Chinese nationality, 18 years and above) were included to assess VE against symptomatic Covid-19, COVID-19 pneumonia, and severe COVID-19. We calculated the relative risks (RR) of the outcomes for unvaccinated compared with fully vaccinated individuals. We used logistic regression analyses to estimate adjusted VEs, controlling for gender and age group (18–59 years and 60 years and over).We compared unvaccinated and fully vaccinated individuals on duration of RT-PCR positivity and Ct value.FindingsThere were 686 close contacts eligible for VE estimates. Adjusted VE of ad5-vectored vaccine was 61.5% (95% CI, 9.5–83.6) against symptomatic COVID-19, 67.9% (95%CI: 1.7–89.9) against pneumonia, and 100% (95%CI: 36.6–100) against severe/critical illness. For the two inactivated vaccines, combined VE was 74.6% (95% CI, 36.0–90.0) against symptomatic COVID-19, 76.7% (95% CI: 19.3–93.3) against pneumonia, and 100% (95% CI: 47.6–100) against severe/critical COVID-19. There were no statistically significant differences in VE between two inactivated vaccines for symptomatic COVID-19 and for pneumonia, nor were there statistically significant differences between inactivated and ad5-vectored VE in any of the three outcomes. The median durations of RT-PCR positivity were 17 days for fifteen people vaccinated with an inactivated vaccine, 18 days for forty-four people vaccinated with the Ad5 vectored vaccine, and 26 days for eleven unvaccinated individuals. InterpretationThese results provide reassuring evidence that the three vaccines are effective at preventing Delta-variant COVID-19 in short term following vaccination campaign, and are most effective at preventing more serious illness. The findings of reduced duration of RT-PCR positivity and length of hospital stay associated with full vaccination suggests potential saving of health-care system resources.     

Excess Mortality After COVID-19 in Swedish Long-Term Care Facilities

ObjectiveTo compare 30-day mortality in long-term care facility (LTCF) residents with and without COVID-19 and to investigate the impact of 31 potential risk factors for mortality in COVID-19 cases.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting and ParticipantsAll residents of LTCFs registered in Senior Alert, a Swedish national database of health examinations in older adults, during 2019-2020.MethodsWe selected residents with confirmed COVID-19 until September 15, 2020, along with time-dependent propensity score–matched controls without COVID-19. Exposures were COVID-19, age, sex, comorbidities, medications, and other patient characteristics. The outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality.ResultsA total of 3731 residents (median age 87 years, 64.5% female) with COVID-19 were matched to 3731 controls without COVID-19. Thirty-day mortality was 39.9% in COVID-19 cases and 5.7% in controls [relative risk 7.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.10-8.14]. In COVID-19 cases, the odds ratio (OR) for 30-day mortality was 2.44 (95% CI 1.57-3.81) in cases aged 80-84 years, 2.99 (95% CI 1.93-4.65) in cases aged 85-89 years, and 3.28 (95% CI 2.11-5.10) in cases aged ≥90 years, as compared with cases aged <70 years. Other risk factors for mortality among COVID-19 cases included male sex (OR, 2.60, 95% CI 2.22-3.05), neuropsychological conditions (OR, 2.18; 95% CI 1.76-2.71), impaired walking ability (OR, 1.45, 95% CI 1.17-1.78), urinary and bowel incontinence (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.85), diabetes (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.14-1.62), chronic kidney disease (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11-1.68) and previous pneumonia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.85). Nutritional factors, cardiovascular diseases, and antihypertensive medications were not significantly associated with mortality.Conclusions and ImplicationsIn Swedish LTCFs, COVID-19 was associated with a large excess in mortality after controlling for an extensive number of risk factors. Beyond older age and male sex, several prevalent clinical risk factors independently contributed to higher mortality. These findings suggest that reducing transmission of COVID-19 in LTCFs will likely prevent a considerable number of deaths.     

SARS-CoV-2 testing in North Carolina: Racial,ethnic, and geographic disparities

SARS-CoV-2 testing data in North Carolina during the first three months of the state's COVID-19 pandemic were analyzed to determine if there were disparities among intersecting axes of identity including race, Latinx ethnicity, age, urban-rural residence, and residence in a medically underserved area. Demographic and residential data were used to reconstruct patterns of testing metrics (including tests per capita, positive tests per capita, and test positivity rate which is an indicator of sufficient testing) across race-ethnicity groups and urban-rural populations separately. Across the entire sample, 13.1% (38,750 of 295,642) of tests were positive. Within racial-ethnic groups, 11.5% of all tests were positive among non-Latinx (NL) Whites, 22.0% for NL Blacks, and 66.5% for people of Latinx ethnicity. The test positivity rate was higher among people living in rural areas across all racial-ethnic groups. These results suggest that in the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic, access to COVID-19 testing in North Carolina was not evenly distributed across racial-ethnic groups, especially in Latinx, NL Black and other historically marginalized populations, and further disparities existed within these groups by gender, age, urban-rural status, and residence in a medically underserved area.     

Utility of Facebook’s Social Connectedness Index in Modeling COVID-19 Spread: Exponential Random Graph Modeling Study

BackgroundThe COVID-19 (the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus) pandemic has underscored the need for additional data, tools, and methods that can be used to combat emerging and existing public health concerns. Since March 2020, there has been substantial interest in using social media data to both understand and intervene in the pandemic. Researchers from many disciplines have recently found a relationship between COVID-19 and a new data set from Facebook called the Social Connectedness Index (SCI).ObjectiveBuilding off this work, we seek to use the SCI to examine how social similarity of Missouri counties could explain similarities of COVID-19 cases over time. Additionally, we aim to add to the body of literature on the utility of the SCI by using a novel modeling technique.MethodsIn September 2020, we conducted this cross-sectional study using publicly available data to test the association between the SCI and COVID-19 spread in Missouri using exponential random graph models, which model relational data, and the outcome variable must be binary, representing the presence or absence of a relationship. In our model, this was the presence or absence of a highly correlated COVID-19 case count trajectory between two given counties in Missouri. Covariates included each county’s total population, percent rurality, and distance between each county pair.ResultsWe found that all covariates were significantly associated with two counties having highly correlated COVID-19 case count trajectories. As the log of a county’s total population increased, the odds of two counties having highly correlated COVID-19 case count trajectories increased by 66% (odds ratio [OR] 1.66, 95% CI 1.43-1.92). As the percent of a county classified as rural increased, the odds of two counties having highly correlated COVID-19 case count trajectories increased by 1% (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01). As the distance (in miles) between two counties increased, the odds of two counties having highly correlated COVID-19 case count trajectories decreased by 43% (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43-0.77). Lastly, as the log of the SCI between two Missouri counties increased, the odds of those two counties having highly correlated COVID-19 case count trajectories significantly increased by 17% (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.26).ConclusionsThese results could suggest that two counties with a greater likelihood of sharing Facebook friendships means residents of those counties have a higher likelihood of sharing similar belief systems, in particular as they relate to COVID-19 and public health practices. Another possibility is that the SCI is picking up travel or movement data among county residents. This suggests the SCI is capturing a unique phenomenon relevant to COVID-19 and that it may be worth adding to other COVID-19 models. Additional research is needed to better understand what the SCI is capturing practically and what it means for public health policies and prevention practices.     

The Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on HIV Testing Utilization Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in China: Cross-sectional Online Survey

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has created disruptions in HIV prevention and sexual health services for men who have sex with men (MSM).ObjectiveThis study compared HIV testing utilization in 3 different reference periods (period 1: before the COVID-19 outbreak, November 2019-January 2020; period 2: after the outbreak, February-April 2020; and period 3: after the pandemic was under initial control, May-July 2020). Factors associated with HIV testing utilization after the COVID-19 outbreak (combined periods 2 and 3) were also investigated.MethodsParticipants were MSM aged ≥18 years living in Shenzhen, China. Those self-reporting as HIV positive were excluded. A total of 595 participants recruited through multiple sources completed a self-administered online survey during August-September 2020. HIV testing utilization after the COVID-19 outbreak was the dependent variable, and multivariate logistic regression models were fitted.ResultsHIV testing utilization was significantly lower in period 2 than in period 1 (n=262 vs 363, 44.0% vs 61.0%, P<.001). However, HIV testing utilization was not significantly higher in period 3 than in period 2 (n=277 vs 262, 46.6% vs 44.0%, P=.21). The prevalence of HIV testing utilization after the COVID-19 outbreak was seen in 331 (55.6%) participants. After adjusting for significant background characteristics, condomless anal intercourse (CAI) with regular male sex partners (RPs; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.15, 95% CI 1.29-3.57) and sexualized drug use (SDU; AOR 2.94, 95% CI 1.41-6.06) both before and after the COVID-19 outbreak, CAI with RPs (AOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.06-4.07) and nonregular male sex partners (NRPs; AOR 3.57, 95%CI: 1.43-8.89) only after the COVID-19 outbreak was positively associated with the dependent variable. Regarding HIV prevention service utilization, HIV testing utilization before the COVID-19 outbreak (AOR 10.75, 95% CI 7.22-16.02) and the use of sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing (AOR 7.02, 95% CI 4.10-12.02), other HIV/STI prevention (AOR 3.15, 95% CI 2.16-4.60), and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP; AOR 3.58, 95% CI 1.54-8.34) after the COVID-19 outbreak were associated with higher HIV testing utilization. The current perceived risk of HIV infection was higher than that before the COVID-19 outbreak (AOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.30), and perceived COVID-19 preventive measures taken by HIV testing service providers to be effective (AOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.29-1.78) and perceived higher behavioral control to undergo HIV testing (AOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00-1.40) were positively associated with HIV testing utilization. Concerns about COVID-19 infection during HIV testing (AOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.89), avoiding crowded places (AOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.98), and HIV testing service providers reducing their working hours (AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.98) were negatively associated with the dependent variable.ConclusionsHIV testing utilization among Chinese MSM declined after the COVID-19 outbreak and did not increase after the pandemic was under initial control. Removing structural barriers to accessing HIV testing caused by COVID-19, modifying perceptions related to HIV testing, and making use of HIV self-testing (HIVST) might be useful strategies to improve HIV testing among MSM during the pandemic.     

Health disparity in the spread of COVID-19: Evidence from social distancing,risk of interactions,and access to testing

Objective– To identify and assess whether three major risk factors that due to differential access to flexible resources might help explain disparities in the spread of COVID-19 across communities with different socioeconomic status, including socioeconomic inequalities in social distancing, the potential risk of interpersonal interactions, and access to testing.MethodsAnalysis uses ZIP code level weekly COVID-19 new cases, weekly population movement flows, weekly close-contact index, and weekly COVID-19 testing sites in Southern California from March 2020 to April 2021, merged with the U.S. census data to measure ZIP code level socioeconomic status and cofounders. This study first develops the measures for social distancing, the potential risk of interactions, and access to testing. Then we employ a spatial lag regression model to quantify the contributions of those factors to weekly COVID-19 case growth.ResultsResults identify that, during the first COVID-19 wave, new case growth of the low-income group is two times higher than that of the high-income group. The COVID-19 case disparity widens to four times in the second COVID-19 wave. We also observed significant disparities in social distancing, the potential risk of interactions, and access to testing among communities with different socioeconomic status. In addition, all of them contribute to the disparities of COVID-19 incidences. Among them, the potential risk of interactions is the most important contributor, whereas testing accessibility contributes least. We also found that close-contact is a more effective measure of social distancing than population movements in examining the spread of COVID-19.Conclusion– This study answers critically unaddressed questions about health disparities in the spread of COVID-19 by assessing factors that might explain why the spread is different in different groups.     

Racial Disparities in Neighborhood Arrest Rates during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Structural racism in police contact is an important driver of health inequities among the U.S. urban population. Hyper-policing and police violence in marginalized communities have risen to the top of the national policy agenda, particularly since protests in 2020. How did pandemic conditions impact policing? We assess neighborhood racial disparities in arrests after COVID-19 stay-at-home orders in Boston, Charleston, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco census tracts (January 2019–August 2020). Using interrupted time series models with census tract fixed effects, we report arrest rates across tract racial and ethnic compositions. In the weeks following stay-at-home orders, overall arrest rates were 39% lower (95% CI: 37–41%) on average compared to rates the year prior. Although arrest rates steadily increased thereafter, most tracts did not reach pre-pandemic arrest levels. However, despite declines in nearly all census tracts, the magnitude of racial inequities in arrests remained unchanged. During the initial weeks of the pandemic, arrest rates declined significantly in areas with higher Black populations, but average rates in Black neighborhoods remained higher than pre-pandemic arrest rates in White neighborhoods. These findings support urban policy reforms that reconsider police capacity and presence, particularly as a mechanism for enforcing public health ordinances and reducing racial disparities.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11524-021-00598-z.     

Neighborhood disadvantage and racial disparities in colorectal cancer incidence: a population-based study in Louisiana

Purpose

Colorectal cancer (CRC) continues to demonstrate racial disparities in incidence and survival in the United States. This study investigates the role of neighborhood concentrated disadvantage in racial disparities in CRC incidence in Louisiana.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among people experiencing homelessness in Toronto during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectivesPeople experiencing homelessness are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study reports the point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during testing conducted at sites serving people experiencing homelessness in Toronto during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also explored the association between site characteristics and prevalence rates.MethodsThe study included individuals who were staying at shelters, encampments, COVID-19 physical distancing sites, and drop-in and respite sites and completed outreach-based testing for SARS-CoV-2 during the period April 17 to July 31, 2020. We examined test positivity rates over time and compared them to rates in the general population of Toronto. Negative binomial regression was used to examine the relationship between each shelter-level characteristic and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates. We also compared the rates across 3 time periods (T1: April 17–April 25; T2: April 26–May 23; T3: May 24–June 25).ResultsThe overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 8.5% (394/4657). Site-specific rates showed great heterogeneity with infection rates ranging from 0% to 70.6%. Compared to T1, positivity rates were 0.21 times lower (95% CI: 0.06–0.75) during T2 and 0.14 times lower (95% CI: 0.04–0.44) during T3. Most cases were detected during outbreak testing (384/394 [97.5%]) rather than active case finding.ConclusionDuring the first wave of the pandemic, rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection at sites for people experiencing homelessness in Toronto varied significantly over time. The observation of lower rates at certain sites may be attributable to overall time trends, expansion of outreach-based testing to include sites without known outbreaks, and/or individual site characteristics.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.17269/s41997-021-00591-8.     

Trends in COVID-19 Testing and Positivity Rates from a Mobile Testing Program in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to be a global concern, with over 150 million cases worldwide. Arizona, which was recently a hotspot for COVID-19, has over 860 thousand cases. Reviewing the COVID-19 trends over time is crucial in understanding the pandemic and evaluating the impact of mitigation techniques. This current study analyzes the trends in COVID-19 testing and positivity rates from a mobile testing program in the Phoenix metropolitan area between December 2020 and April 2021. Of the 32,234 tests performed there was a total of 3654 COVID positive cases, yielding an overall positivity rate of 11.3%. COVID-19 positivity rates were significantly higher in December (12.9%) and January (12.7%), compared to February (7.5%), March (4.9%), and April (6.7%), p?<?0.05. The peak of COVID-19 cases is likely attributable to the holiday season and family gatherings, followed by a steady decline, likely due to fewer gatherings and an increase in individuals receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. Continued public health measures, including vaccinations, are critical in reducing COVID-19 transmission.