Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Incidence and Risk Factors in a National, Community-Based Prospective Cohort of US Adults.

BACKGROUND: Prospective cohort studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) incidence complement case-based surveillance and cross-sectional seroprevalence surveys. METHODS: We estimated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a national cohort of 6738 US adults, enrolled in March-August 2020. Using Poisson models, we examined the association of social distancing and a composite epidemiologic risk score with seroconversion. The risk score was created using least absolute shrinkage selection operator (LASSO) regression to identify factors predictive of seroconversion. The selected factors were household crowding, confirmed case in household, indoor dining, gathering with groups of ≥10, and no masking in gyms or salons. RESULTS: Among 4510 individuals with ≥1 serologic test, 323 (7.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.5%-8.1%]) seroconverted by January 2021. Among 3422 participants seronegative in May-September 2020 and retested from November 2020 to January 2021, 161 seroconverted over 1646 person-years of follow-up (9.8 per 100 person-years [95% CI, 8.3-11.5]). The seroincidence rate was lower among women compared with men (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.69 [95% CI, .50-.94]) and higher among Hispanic (2.09 [1.41-3.05]) than white non-Hispanic participants. In adjusted models, participants who reported social distancing with people they did not know (IRR for always vs never social distancing, 0.42 [95% CI, .20-1.0]) and with people they knew (IRR for always vs never, 0.64 [.39-1.06]; IRR for sometimes vs never, 0.60 [.38-.96]) had lower seroconversion risk. Seroconversion risk increased with epidemiologic risk score (IRR for medium vs low score, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.03-2.81]; IRR for high vs low score, 3.49 [2.26-5.58]). Only 29% of those who seroconverted reported isolating, and only 19% were asked about contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable risk factors and poor reach of public health strategies drove SARS-CoV-2 transmission across the United States.

"I stretch them out as long as possible:" U.S. women's experiences of menstrual product insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence highlights how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated gender inequalities in the US. This resulted in women being more vulnerable to economic insecurity and decreases in their overall well-being. One relevant issue that has been less explored is that of women's menstrual health experiences, including how inconsistent access to menstrual products may negatively impact their daily lives. METHODS: This qualitative study, conducted from March through May 2021, utilized in-depth interviews that were nested within a national prospective cohort study. The interviews (n = 25) were conducted with a sub-sample of cis-gender women living across the US who had reported challenges accessing products during the first year of the pandemic. The interviews sought to understand the barriers that contributed to experiencing menstrual product insecurity, and related coping mechanisms. Malterud's 'systematic text condensation', an inductive thematic analysis method, was utilized to analyze the qualitative transcripts. RESULTS: Respondents came from 17 different states across the U.S. Three key themes were identified: financial and physical barriers existed to consistent menstrual product access; a range of coping strategies in response to menstrual product insecurity, including dependence on makeshift and poorer quality materials; and heightened experiences of menstrual-related anxiety and shame, especially regarding the disclosure of their menstruating status to others as a result of inadequate menstrual leak protection. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing menstrual product insecurity is a critical step for ensuring that all people who menstruate can attain their most basic menstrual health needs. Key recommendations for mitigating the impact of menstrual product insecurity require national and state-level policy reform, such as the inclusion of menstrual products in existing safety net basic needs programs, and the reframing of menstrual products as essential items. Improved education and advocacy are needed to combat menstrual stigma.

Psychosocial Stressors and Maternal Mental Health in the U.S. During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID pandemic has had widespread impacts on maternal mental health. This research aims to examine the relationship between psychosocial stressors and symptoms of depression and anxiety and the extent to which emotional support or resilient coping moderates the relationship between psychosocial stressors and maternal mental health during the first wave of the COVID pandemic. METHODS: This analysis includes data collected in October and November 2020 from a geographically and sociodemographically diverse sample of 776 mothers in the U.S. with children ≤ 18 years of age. Log binomial models were used to estimate the association between moderate or severe symptoms of anxiety and depression and psychosocial stressors. RESULTS: Symptoms of moderate or severe anxiety and depression were reported by 37.5% and 37.6% of participants, respectively. Moderate (aRR 2.76 [95% CI 1.87, 4.07]) and high (aRR 4.95 [95% CI 3.40, 7.20]) levels of perceived stress were associated with greater risk of moderate or severe anxiety symptoms. Moderate and high levels of parental burnout were also associated with greater prevalence of moderate or severe anxiety symptoms in multivariable models. Results were similar when examining the relationship among stress, parental burnout, and depressive symptoms. Neither resilient coping nor social support modified the relationship between psychosocial stressors and mental health. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Evidence-based strategies to reduce stress and parental burnout and improve the mental health of mothers are urgently needed. Strategies focused on bolstering coping and social support may be insufficient to improve maternal mental health during acute public health emergencies.

Determinants and Trends of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Vaccine Uptake in a National Cohort of US Adults: A Longitudinal Study.

We estimated the trends and correlates of vaccine hesitancy and its association with subsequent vaccine uptake among 5,458 adults in the United States. Participants belonged to the Communities, Households, and SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology COVID (CHASING COVID) Cohort, a national longitudinal study. Trends and correlates of vaccine hesitancy were examined longitudinally in 8 interview rounds from October 2020 to July 2021. We also estimated the association between willingness to vaccinate and subsequent vaccine uptake through July 2021. Vaccine delay and refusal decreased from 51% and 8% in October 2020 to 8% and 6% in July 2021, respectively. Compared with non-Hispanic (NH) White participants, NH Black and Hispanic participants had higher adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for both vaccine delay (for NH Black, aOR = 2.0 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 2.7), and for Hispanic, 1.3 (95% CI: 1.0, 1.7)) and vaccine refusal (for NH Black, aOR = 2.5 (95% CI: 1.8, 3.6), and for Hispanic, 1.4 (95% CI: 1.0, 2.0)) in June 2021. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, compared with vaccine-willingness, was associated with lower odds of subsequent vaccine uptake (for vaccine delayers, aOR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.18; for vaccine refusers, aOR = 0.02; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.03 ), adjusted for sociodemographic factors and COVID-19 history. Vaccination awareness and distribution efforts should focus on vaccine delayers.

Menstrual Product Insecurity Resulting From COVID-19‒Related Income Loss, United States, 2020.

Objectives. To identify key effects of the pandemic and its economic consequences on menstrual product insecurity with implications for public health practice and policy. Methods. Study participants (n = 1496) were a subset of individuals enrolled in a national (US) prospective cohort study. Three survey waves were included (March‒October 2020). Menstrual product insecurity outcomes were explored with bivariate associations and logistic regression models to examine the associations between outcomes and income loss. Results. Income loss was associated with most aspects of menstrual product insecurity (adjusted odds ratios from 1.34 to 3.64). The odds of not being able to afford products for those who experienced income loss was 3.64 times (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.14, 6.19) that of those who had no income loss and 3.95 times (95% CI = 1.78, 8.79) the odds for lower-income participants compared with higher-income participants. Conclusions. Pandemic-related income loss was a strong predictor of menstrual product insecurity, particularly for populations with lower income and educational attainment. Public Health Implications. Provision of free or subsidized menstrual products is needed by vulnerable populations and those most impacted by pandemic-related income loss.(Am J Public Health. 2022;112(4):675-684. (https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306674).

Understanding contraceptive failure: an analysis of qualitative narratives.

Most American women wanting to avoid pregnancy use contraception, yet contraceptive failures are common. Guided by the Health Belief Model (HBM), we conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with women who described experiencing a contraceptive failure (n=69) to examine why and how this outcome occurs. We found three primary drivers of contraceptive failures (health literacy and beliefs, partners and relationships, and structural barriers), and we identified pathways through which these drivers led to contraceptive failures that resulted in pregnancy. These findings have implications for how individuals can be better supported to select their preferred contraception during clinical contraceptive discussions.

Household factors and the risk of severe COVID-like illness early in the U.S. pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of children in the home and household crowding as risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease. METHODS: We used interview data from 6,831 U.S. adults screened for the Communities, Households and SARS/CoV-2 Epidemiology (CHASING) COVID Cohort Study in April 2020. RESULTS: In logistic regression models, the adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of hospitalization due to COVID-19 for having (versus not having) children in the home was 10.5 (95% CI:5.7-19.1) among study participants living in multi-unit dwellings and 2.2 (95% CI:1.2-6.5) among those living in single unit dwellings. Among participants living in multi-unit dwellings, the aOR for COVID-19 hospitalization among participants with more than 4 persons in their household (versus 1 person) was 2.5 (95% CI:1.0-6.1), and 0.8 (95% CI:0.15-4.1) among those living in single unit dwellings. CONCLUSION: Early in the US SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, certain household exposures likely increased the risk of both SARS-CoV-2 acquisition and the risk of severe COVID-19 disease.

Cohort profile: a national, community-based prospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic outcomes in the USA-the CHASING COVID Cohort study.

PURPOSE: The Communities, Households and SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology (CHASING) COVID Cohort Study is a community-based prospective cohort study launched during the upswing of the USA COVID-19 epidemic. The objectives of the cohort study are to: (1) estimate and evaluate determinants of the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease and deaths; (2) assess the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial and economic outcomes and (3) assess the uptake of pandemic mitigation strategies. PARTICIPANTS: We began enrolling participants from 28 March 2020 using internet-based strategies. Adults≥18 years residing anywhere in the USA or US territories were eligible. 6740 people are enrolled in the cohort, including participants from all 50 US states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. Participants are contacted regularly to complete study assessments, including interviews and dried blood spot specimen collection for serologic testing. FINDINGS TO DATE: Participants are geographically and sociodemographically diverse and include essential workers (19%). 84.2% remain engaged in cohort follow-up activities after enrolment. Data have been used to assess SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence, seroincidence and related risk factors at different phases of the US pandemic; the role of household crowding and the presence of children in the household as potential risk factors for severe COVID-19 early in the US pandemic; to describe the prevalence of anxiety symptoms and its relationship to COVID-19 outcomes and other potential stressors; to identify preferences for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing when community transmission is on the rise via a discrete choice experiment and to assess vaccine hesitancy over time and its relationship to vaccine uptake. FUTURE PLANS: The CHASING COVID Cohort Study has outlined a research agenda that involves ongoing monitoring of the incidence and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 outcomes, mental health outcomes and economic outcomes. Additional priorities include assessing the incidence, prevalence and correlates of long-haul COVID-19.

Patterns of SARS-CoV-2 Testing Preferences in a National Cohort in the United States: Latent Class Analysis of a Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate screening and diagnostic testing in the United States throughout the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic led to undetected cases transmitting disease in the community and an underestimation of cases. Though testing supply has increased, maintaining testing uptake remains a public health priority in the efforts to control community transmission considering the availability of vaccinations and threats from variants. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify patterns of preferences for SARS-CoV-2 screening and diagnostic testing prior to widespread vaccine availability and uptake. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) among participants in the national, prospective CHASING COVID (Communities, Households, and SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology) Cohort Study from July 30 to September 8, 2020. The DCE elicited preferences for SARS-CoV-2 test type, specimen type, testing venue, and result turnaround time. We used latent class multinomial logit to identify distinct patterns of preferences related to testing as measured by attribute-level part-worth utilities and conducted a simulation based on the utility estimates to predict testing uptake if additional testing scenarios were offered. RESULTS: Of the 5098 invited cohort participants, 4793 (94.0%) completed the DCE. Five distinct patterns of SARS-CoV-2 testing emerged. Noninvasive home testers (n=920, 19.2% of participants) were most influenced by specimen type and favored less invasive specimen collection methods, with saliva being most preferred; this group was the least likely to opt out of testing. Fast-track testers (n=1235, 25.8%) were most influenced by result turnaround time and favored immediate and same-day turnaround time. Among dual testers (n=889, 18.5%), test type was the most important attribute, and preference was given to both antibody and viral tests. Noninvasive dual testers (n=1578, 32.9%) were most strongly influenced by specimen type and test type, preferring saliva and cheek swab specimens and both antibody and viral tests. Among hesitant home testers (n=171, 3.6%), the venue was the most important attribute; notably, this group was the most likely to opt out of testing. In addition to variability in preferences for testing features, heterogeneity was observed in the distribution of certain demographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, education, and employment), history of SARS-CoV-2 testing, COVID-19 diagnosis, and concern about the pandemic. Simulation models predicted that testing uptake would increase from 81.6% (with a status quo scenario of polymerase chain reaction by nasal swab in a provider's office and a turnaround time of several days) to 98.1% by offering additional scenarios using less invasive specimens, both viral and antibody tests from a single specimen, faster turnaround time, and at-home testing. CONCLUSIONS: We identified substantial differences in preferences for SARS-CoV-2 testing and found that offering additional testing options would likely increase testing uptake in line with public health goals. Additional studies may be warranted to understand if preferences for testing have changed since the availability and widespread uptake of vaccines.

SARS-CoV-2 incidence and risk factors in a national, community-based prospective cohort of U.S. adults.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic risk factors for incident SARS-CoV-2 infection as determined via prospective cohort studies greatly augment and complement information from case-based surveillance and cross-sectional seroprevalence surveys. METHODS: We estimated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk factors in a well-characterized, national prospective cohort of 6,738 U.S. adults, enrolled March-August 2020, a subset of whom (n=4,510) underwent repeat serologic testing between May 2020 and January 2021. We examined the crude associations of sociodemographic factors, epidemiologic risk factors, and county-level community transmission with the incidence of seroconversion. In multivariable Poisson models we examined the association of social distancing and a composite score of several epidemiologic risk factors with the rate of seroconversion. FINDINGS: Among the 4,510 individuals with at least one serologic test, 323 (7.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.5%-8.1%) seroconverted by January 2021. Among 3,422 participants seronegative in May-September 2020 and tested during November 2020-January 2021, we observed 161 seroconversions over 1,646 person-years of follow-up (incidence rate of 9.8 per 100 person-years [95%CI 8.3-11.5]). In adjusted models, participants who reported always or sometimes social distancing with people they knew (IRRalways vs. never 0.43, 95%CI 0.21-1.0; IRRsometimes vs. never 0.47, 95%CI 0.22-1.2) and people they did not know (IRRalways vs. never 0.64, 95%CI 0.39-1.1; IRRsometimes vs. never 0.60, 95%CI 0.38-0.97) had lower rates of seroconversion. The rate of seroconversion increased across tertiles of the composite score of epidemiologic risk (IRRmedium vs. low 1.5, 95%CI 0.92-2.4; IRRhigh vs. low 3.0, 95%CI 2.0-4.6). Among the 161 observed seroconversions, 28% reported no symptoms of COVID-like illness (i.e., were asymptomatic), and 27% reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test. Ultimately, only 29% reported isolating and 19% were asked about contacts. INTERPRETATION: Modifiable epidemiologic risk factors and poor reach of public health strategies drove SARS-CoV-2 transmission across the U.S during May 2020-January 2021. FUNDING: U.S. National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Testing, Testing: What SARS-CoV-2 testing services do adults in the United States actually want?

Importance: Ascertaining preferences for SARS-CoV-2 testing and incorporating findings into the design and implementation of strategies for delivering testing services may enhance testing uptake and engagement, a prerequisite to reducing onward transmission. Objective: To determine important drivers of decisions to obtain a SARS-CoV-2 test in the context of increasing community transmission. Design : A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to assess the relative importance of type of SARS-CoV-2 test, specimen type, testing venue, and results turnaround time. Uptake of an optimized testing scenario was simulated relative to the current typical testing scenario of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) via nasopharyngeal (NP) swab in a provider office or urgent care clinic with results in >5 days. Setting: ​ Online survey, embedded in an existing cohort study, conducted during July 30 - September 8, 2020. Participants: ​Participants (n=4,793) were enrolled in the CHASING COVID Cohort Study, a national longitudinal cohort of adults >18 years residing in the 50 US states, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, or Guam. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Relative importance of SARS-CoV-2 testing method attributes, utilities of specific attribute levels, and probability of choosing a testing scenario based on preferences estimated from the DCE, the current typical testing option, or choosing not to test. Results: ​Turnaround time for test results had the highest relative importance (30.4%), followed by test type (28.3%), specimen type (26.2%), and venue (15.0%). Participants preferred fast results on both past and current infection and using a noninvasive specimen, preferably collected at home. Simulations suggested that providing immediate or same day test results, providing both PCR and serology, or collecting oral specimens would substantially increase testing uptake over the current typical testing option. Simulated uptake of a hypothetical testing scenario of PCR and serology via a saliva sample at a pharmacy with same day results was 97.7%, compared to 0.6% for the current typical testing scenario, with 1.8% opting for no test. Conclusions and Relevance: ​Testing strategies that offer both PCR and serology with non-invasive methods and rapid turnaround time would likely have the most uptake and engagement among residents in communities with increasing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

SARS-CoV-2 Testing Service Preferences of Adults in the United States: Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Ascertaining preferences for SARS-CoV-2 testing and incorporating findings into the design and implementation of strategies for delivering testing services may enhance testing uptake and engagement, a prerequisite to reducing onward transmission. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine important drivers of decisions to obtain a SARS-CoV-2 test in the context of increasing community transmission. METHODS: We used a discrete choice experiment to assess preferences for SARS-CoV-2 test type, specimen type, testing venue, and results turnaround time. Participants (n=4793) from the US national longitudinal Communities, Households and SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology (CHASING) COVID Cohort Study completed our online survey from July 30 to September 8, 2020. We estimated the relative importance of testing method attributes and part-worth utilities of attribute levels, and simulated the uptake of an optimized testing scenario relative to the current typical testing scenario of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) via nasopharyngeal swab in a provider's office or urgent care clinic with results in >5 days. RESULTS: Test result turnaround time had the highest relative importance (30.4%), followed by test type (28.3%), specimen type (26.2%), and venue (15.0%). In simulations, immediate or same-day test results, both PCR and serology, or oral specimens substantially increased testing uptake over the current typical testing option. Simulated uptake of a hypothetical testing scenario of PCR and serology via a saliva sample at a pharmacy with same-day results was 97.7%, compared to 0.6% for the current typical testing scenario, with 1.8% opting for no test. CONCLUSIONS: Testing strategies that offer both PCR and serology with noninvasive methods and rapid turnaround time would likely have the most uptake and engagement among residents in communities with increasing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Patterns of SARS-CoV-2 testing preferences in a national cohort in the United States.

In order to understand preferences about SARS-CoV-2 testing, we conducted a discrete choice experiment among 4793 participants in the Communities, Households, and SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology (CHASING COVID) Cohort Study from July 30-September 8, 2020. We used latent class analysis to identify distinct patterns of preferences related to testing and conducted a simulation to predict testing uptake if additional testing scenarios were offered. Five distinct patterns of SARS-CoV-2 testing emerged. "Comprehensive testers" (18.9%) ranked specimen type as most important and favored less invasive specimen types, with saliva most preferred, and also ranked venue and result turnaround time as highly important, with preferences for home testing and fast result turnaround time. "Fast track testers" (26.0%) ranked result turnaround time as most important and favored immediate and same day turnaround time. "Dual testers" (18.5%) ranked test type as most important and preferred both antibody and viral tests. "Non-invasive dual testers" (33.0%) ranked specimen type and test type as similarly most important, preferring cheek swab specimen type and both antibody and viral tests. "Home testers" (3.6%) ranked venue as most important and favored home-based testing. By offering less invasive (saliva specimen type), dual testing (both viral and antibody tests), and at home testing scenarios in addition to standard testing scenarios, simulation models predicted that testing uptake would increase from 81.7% to 98.1%. We identified substantial differences in preferences for SARS-CoV-2 testing and found that offering additional testing options, which consider this heterogeneity, would likely increase testing uptake. SIGNIFICANCE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, diagnostic testing has allowed for early detection of cases and implementation of measures to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Understanding individuals' preferences about testing and the service models that deliver tests are relevant in efforts to increase and sustain uptake of SARS-CoV-2 testing, which, despite vaccine availability, will be required for the foreseeable future. We identified substantial differences in preferences for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a discrete choice experiment among a large national cohort of adults in the US. Offering additional testing options that account for or anticipate this heterogeneity in preferences (e.g., both viral and antibody tests, at home testing), would likely increase testing uptake. CLASSIFICATION: Biological Sciences (major); Psychological and Cognitive Sciences (minor).

Household factors and the risk of severe COVID-like illness early in the US pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of children in the home and household crowding as risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease. METHODS: We used interview data from 6,831 U.S. adults screened for the Communities, Households and SARS/CoV-2 Epidemiology (CHASING) COVID Cohort Study in April 2020. RESULTS: In logistic regression models, the adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of hospitalization due to COVID-19 for having (versus not having) children in the home was 10.5 (95% CI:5.7-19.1) among study participants living in multi-unit dwellings and 2.2 (95% CI:1.2-6.5) among those living in single unit dwellings. Among participants living in multi-unit dwellings, the aOR for COVID-19 hospitalization among participants with more than 4 persons in their household (versus 1 person) was 2.5 (95% CI:1.0-6.1), and 0.8 (95% CI:0.15-4.1) among those living in single unit dwellings. CONCLUSION: Early in the US SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, certain household exposures likely increased the risk of both SARS-CoV-2 acquisition and the risk of severe COVID-19 disease.