Who tests for lead and why? A 10-year analysis of blood lead screening, follow-up and CNS outcomes in a statewide US healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine (1) which providers in US healthcare systems order lead tests, why and at what frequency and (2) whether current patient population lead levels are predictive of clinical outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective medical record study of all blood lead tests in the Medical University of South Carolina healthcare system 2012-2016 and consequent evidence of central nervous system (CNS)-related disease across a potential 10-year window (2012-2022). RESULTS: Across 4 years, 9726 lead tests resulted for 7181 patients (49.0% female; 0-94 years), representing 0.2% of the hospital population. Most tests were for young (76.6%≤age 3) and non-Hispanic black (47.2%) and Hispanic (26.7%) patients. A wide variety of providers ordered tests; however, most were ordered by paediatrics, psychiatry, internal medicine and neurology. Lead levels ranged from ≤2.0 µg/dL (80.8%) to ≥10 µg/dL (0.8%; max 36 µg/dL). 201 children (3.1%) had initial lead levels over the reference value for case management at the time (5.0 µg/dL). Many high level children did not receive follow-up testing in the system (36.3%) and those that did often failed to see levels fall below 5.0 µg/dL (80.1%). Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic patients were more likely to see lead levels stay high or go up over time. Over follow-up, children with high lead levels were more likely to receive new attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder diagnoses and new psychiatric medications. No significant associations were found between lead test results and new CNS diagnoses or medications among adults. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital lead testing covers a small portion of patients but includes a wide range of ages, presentations and provider specialities. Lack of lead decline among many paediatric patients suggests there is room to improve provider guidance around when to test and follow-up.

Using the 5C model to understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy across a National and South Carolina sample.

Vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to global health; however, significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy exists throughout the United States. The 5C model, which postulates five person-level determinants for vaccine hesitancy - confidence, complacency, constraints, risk calculation, and collective responsibility - provides one theoretical way of understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The present study examined the effects of these 5C drivers of vaccine behavior on early vaccine adoption and vaccine intentions above and beyond theoretically salient demographic characteristics and compared these associations across a National sample (n = 1634) and a statewide sample from South Carolina (n = 784) - a state with documented low levels of COVID-19 vaccination uptake. This study used quantitative and qualitative data collected in October 2020 to January 2021 from the MFour-Mobile Research Panel, a large, representative non-probability sample of adult smartphone users. Overall, the South Carolina sample reported lower COVID-19 vaccine intentions and higher levels of 5C barriers to vaccine uptake compared to the National sample. Findings further indicated that both demographic characteristics (race) and certain drivers of vaccine behavior (confidence and collective responsibility) are associated with vaccine trust and intentions across samples above and beyond other variables. Qualitative data indicated that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was driven by fears about the quick vaccine development, limited research, and potential side effects. Although there are some limitations to the cross-sectional survey data, the present study offers valuable insight into factors associated with early COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy across the United States.