Distribution of COVID-19 Home Testing Through Community Health Centers: Results of the COVID CoNOce MÁS Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess acceptability and feasibility of rapid at-home COVID-19 testing and reporting of test results among individuals seeking care at community health centers (CHCs) and their household members. METHODS: Participants were recruited from 2 Community Health Centers during a clinic visit or a community event. Over-the-counter COVID-19 tests were distributed to participants for self-testing and to offer testing to household members. Separate surveys were administered to collect baseline information on the study participant and to collect test results on the study participant and household members. We calculated the proportion of individuals who agreed to complete COVID home testing, those who reported test results, and the test positivity. For household members, we calculated the proportion who completed and reported results and the positivity rate. We assessed reasons for undergoing COVID-19 testing and the action taken by participants who reported positive tests. RESULTS: A total of 2189 individuals were approached by CHC staff for participation and 1013 (46.3%) agreed to participate. Among the 959 participants with complete sociodemographic data, 88% were Hispanic and 82.6% were female. The proportion providing test results was 36.2% and the test positivity was 4.2%. Among the 1927 test reports, 35.3% for the index participant and 64.4% were for household members. The largest proportion of test results were for index participants (35.3%) and the second largest was for the participant's children (32.1%), followed by parents (16.9%), and spouse/partner (13.2%). The 2 most common reasons for testing were symptoms (29%) and attending family gatherings (26%). Among test-positive individuals (n = 80), most (83.3%) noted that they isolated but only 16.3% called their provider and 1.3% visited a clinic. CONCLUSION: Our results show interest in at-home COVID-19 testing of multiple household members, as we headed into the endemic phase of the pandemic. However, reporting of test results was modest and among test-positive individuals, reporting results to a provider was very low. These results underscore the challenges with reporting and following guidelines among people undergoing home testing for COVID-19, which may have implications for future pandemics.

A pragmatic randomized trial of mailed fecal immunochemical testing to increase colorectal cancer screening among low-income and minoritized populations.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, particularly among low-income and minoritized populations, for whom the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged progress in achieving equity. METHODS: A hub-and-spoke model was used. The hub was a nonacademic organization and the spokes were three community health center (CHC) systems overseeing numerous clinic sites. Via a cluster-randomized trial design, nine clinic sites were randomized to intervention and 16 clinic sites were randomized to usual care. Patient-level interventions included invitation letters, mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), and call/text-based reminders. Year 1 intervention impact, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, was assessed as the proportion completing screening among individuals not up to date at baseline, which compared intervention and nonintervention clinics accounting for intraclinic cluster variation; confidence intervals (CIs) around differences not including 0 were interpreted as statistically significant. RESULTS: Among 26,736 patients who met eligibility criteria, approximately 58% were female, 55% were Hispanic individuals, and 44% were Spanish speaking. The proportion completing screening was 11.5 percentage points (ppts) (95% CI, 6.1-16.9 ppts) higher in intervention versus usual care clinics. Variation in differences between intervention and usual care clinics was observed by sex (12.6 ppts [95% CI, 7.2-18.0 ppts] for females; 8.8 ppts [95% CI, 4.7-13.9 ppts] for males) and by racial and ethnic group (13.8 ppts [95% CI, 7.0-20.6 ppts] for Hispanic individuals; 13.0 ppts [95% CI, 3.6-22.4 ppts] for Asian individuals; 11.3 ppts [95% CI, 5.8-16.8 ppts] for non-Hispanic White individuals; 6.1 ppts [95% CI, 0.8-10.4 ppts] for Black individuals). CONCLUSIONS: A regional mailed FIT intervention was effective for increasing CRC screening rates across CHC systems serving diverse, low-income populations.

Mental health and social connection among older lesbian and bisexual women.

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in psychosocial and mental health outcomes between older lesbian and bisexual women compared to heterosexual women. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: The study was carried out in the California Teachers Study, a prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Self-identified heterosexual (n = 35,846), lesbian (n = 710), and bisexual (n = 253) women 50 years of age and older were enrolled. MEASUREMENTS: Validated questionnaires were used to measure social connection, overall happiness, and depression. Logistic regression modeling was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing lesbian and bisexual women separately to heterosexual women in relation to psychosocial and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: After controlling for age and marital status, older bisexual women were significantly more likely to report lack of companionship (OR = 2.00; 95% CI, 1.30-3.12) and feeling left out (OR = 2.33; 95% CI, 1.36-3.97) compared to older heterosexual women. The odds of reporting feeling isolated from others was significantly higher in lesbian (OR = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.06-2.30) and bisexual women (OR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.37-3.87) than in heterosexual women. The OR (95% CI) for reporting not being very happy overall was 1.96 (CI, 1.09-3.52) in bisexual women and 1.40 (0.92-2.14) in lesbian women compared to heterosexual women. The likelihood of reporting diagnosed depression was significantly higher in lesbian women (OR = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.38-1.97) and bisexual women (OR = 2.21; 95% CI, 1.67-2.93) compared to heterosexual women. CONCLUSION: Inclusion of lesbian and bisexual women in aging research is essential to understand their unique mental and other health needs, including those specific to bisexual women.