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.

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.

Seroincidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to and during the rollout of vaccines in a community-based prospective cohort of U.S. adults.

This study used repeat serologic testing to estimate infection rates and risk factors in two overlapping cohorts of SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative U.S. adults. One mostly unvaccinated sub-cohort was tracked from April 2020 to March 2021 (pre-vaccine/wild-type era, n = 3421), and the other, mostly vaccinated cohort, from March 2021 to June 2022 (vaccine/variant era, n = 2735). Vaccine uptake was 0.53% and 91.3% in the pre-vaccine and vaccine/variant cohorts, respectively. Corresponding seroconversion rates were 9.6 and 25.7 per 100 person-years. In both cohorts, sociodemographic and epidemiologic risk factors for infection were similar, though new risk factors emerged in the vaccine/variant era, such as having a child in the household. Despite higher incidence rates in the vaccine/variant cohort, vaccine boosters, masking, and social distancing were associated with substantially reduced infection risk, even through major variant surges.

Seroincidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to and during the rollout of vaccines in a community-based prospective cohort of U.S. adults.

Background: Infectious disease surveillance systems, which largely rely on diagnosed cases, underestimate the true incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, due to under-ascertainment and underreporting. We used repeat serologic testing to measure N-protein seroconversion in a well-characterized cohort of U.S. adults with no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection to estimate the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and characterize risk factors, with comparisons before and after the start of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and variant eras. Methods: We assessed the incidence rate of infection and risk factors in two sub-groups (cohorts) that were SARS-CoV-2 N-protein seronegative at the start of each follow-up period: 1) the pre-vaccine/wild-type era cohort (n=3,421), followed from April to November 2020; and 2) the vaccine/variant era cohort (n=2,735), followed from November 2020 to June 2022. Both cohorts underwent repeat serologic testing with an assay for antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 N protein (Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 total Ab). We estimated crude incidence and sociodemographic/epidemiologic risk factors in both cohorts. We used multivariate Poisson models to compare the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the pre-vaccine/wild-type era cohort (referent group) to that in the vaccine/variant era cohort, within strata of vaccination status and epidemiologic risk factors (essential worker status, child in the household, case in the household, social distancing). Findings: In the pre-vaccine/wild-type era cohort, only 18 of the 3,421 participants (0.53%) had ≥1 vaccine dose by the end of follow-up, compared with 2,497/2,735 (91.3%) in the vaccine/variant era cohort. We observed 323 and 815 seroconversions in the pre-vaccine/wild-type era and the vaccine/variant era and cohorts, respectively, with corresponding incidence rates of 9.6 (95% CI: 8.3-11.5) and 25.7 (95% CI: 24.2-27.3) per 100 person-years. Associations of sociodemographic and epidemiologic risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 incidence were largely similar in the pre-vaccine/wild-type and vaccine/variant era cohorts. However, some new epidemiologic risk factors emerged in the vaccine/variant era cohort, including having a child in the household, and never wearing a mask while using public transit. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR), with the entire pre-vaccine/wild-type era cohort as the referent group, showed markedly higher incidence in the vaccine/variant era cohort, but with more vaccine doses associated with lower incidence: aIRRun/undervaccinated=5.3 (95% CI: 4.2-6.7); aIRRprimary series only=5.1 (95% CI: 4.2-7.3); aIRRboosted once=2.5 (95% CI: 2.1-3.0), and aIRRboosted twice=1.65 (95% CI: 1.3-2.1). These associations were essentially unchanged in risk factor-stratified models. Interpretation: In SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative individuals, large increases in incidence and newly emerging epidemiologic risk factors in the vaccine/variant era likely resulted from multiple co-occurring factors, including policy changes, behavior changes, surges in transmission, and changes in SARS-CoV-2 variant properties. While SARS-CoV-2 incidence increased markedly in most groups in the vaccine/variant era, being up to date on vaccines and the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as masking and social distancing, remained reliable strategies to mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, even through major surges due to immune evasive variants. Repeat serologic testing in cohort studies is a useful and complementary strategy to characterize SARS-CoV-2 incidence and risk factors.

Food Insecurity During the First Year of COVID-19: Employment and Sociodemographic Factors Among Participants in the CHASING COVID Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: While much has been reported about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food insecurity, longitudinal data and the variability experienced by people working in various industries are limited. This study aims to further characterize people experiencing food insecurity during the pandemic in terms of employment, sociodemographic characteristics, and degree of food insecurity. METHODS: The study sample consisted of people enrolled in the Communities, Households and SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology (CHASING) COVID Cohort Study from visit 1 (April-July 2020) through visit 7 (May-June 2021). We created weights to account for participants with incomplete or missing data. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression models to determine employment and sociodemographic correlates of food insecurity. We also examined patterns of food insecurity and use of food support programs. RESULTS: Of 6740 participants, 39.6% (n = 2670) were food insecure. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic (vs non-Hispanic White) participants, participants in households with children (vs no children), and participants with lower (vs higher) income and education levels had higher odds of food insecurity. By industry, people employed in construction, leisure and hospitality, and trade, transportation, and utilities industries had the highest prevalence of both food insecurity and income loss. Among participants reporting food insecurity, 42.0% (1122 of 2670) were persistently food insecure (≥4 consecutive visits) and 43.9% (1172 of 2670) did not use any food support programs. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic resulted in widespread food insecurity in our cohort, much of which was persistent. In addition to addressing sociodemographic disparities, future policies should focus on the needs of those working in industries vulnerable to economic disruption and ensure those experiencing food insecurity can access food support programs for which they are eligible.

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.

Facilitators and barriers to incorporating digital technologies into HIV care among cisgender female sex workers living with HIV in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 44-69% of female sex workers (FSW) in South Africa are living with HIV, among whom 39% are virally suppressed. Digital technologies-increasingly advanced and accessible to marginalized populations-present new opportunities to improve the HIV care continuum. The objective of this study was to explore potential facilitators and barriers to incorporating mobile phones and advanced technologies (e.g., biometric identification methods, mobile phone applications for social media and other uses, and chatbots) to deliver HIV-related interventions to cisgender FSW living with HIV in Durban, South Africa. METHODS: Four semi-structured, focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 22 cisgender FSWs in December 2018. Participants were recruited from the ongoing Siyaphambili trial using maximum variation sampling to optimize diversity in participant age and sex work venue. FGDs were audio recorded in isiZulu, and translated and transcribed into English. Transcripts were inductively coded using thematic analysis and sub-themes were iteratively refined to connect and evaluate the saliency of codes. RESULTS: Phone ownership was motivated by a desire to remain safe and to connect with family, peers, and clients. When FSW did not have access to a mobile phone, they reported sharing phones with their peers, though sharing only occurred under specific conditions. Still, to integrate mobile phones into HIV care, FSW identified consistent access to mobile phones as a key barrier. Mobile phone turnover due to frequent selling of phones to meet other financial priorities, substance use, and theft were common. To integrate advanced technologies into HIV care, FSW identified convenience, security, and additional opportunities for social support as the main facilitators. For example, FSW described how biometric identification at clinics could eliminate the need to retain a clinic card. FSW also described how chatbots could easily set medication alarms or be available to assist in emergencies. Barriers for advanced technologies included maintaining privacy, potential threats to security, and cost. CONCLUSIONS: FSWs were receptive to digital technologies for HIV care and beyond, but they also described many barriers such as inconsistent phone ownership and threats to privacy. As phone ownership grows and HIV programs increasingly leverage digital tools, strong considerations are needed to ensure the most vulnerable are not systematically excluded.

The relationship between anxiety, health, and potential stressors among adults in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of anxiety symptoms and the association between moderate or severe anxiety symptoms and health and potential stressors among adults in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This analysis includes data from 5,250 adults in the Communities, Households and SARS/CoV-2 Epidemiology (CHASING) COVID Cohort Study surveyed in April 2020. Poisson models were used to estimate the association between moderate or severe anxiety symptoms and health and potential stressors among U.S. adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Greater than one-third (35%) of participants reported moderate or severe anxiety symptoms. Having lost income due to COVID-19 (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.27 (95% CI 1.16, 1.30), having recent COVID-like symptoms (aPR 1.17 (95% CI 1.05, 1,31), and having been previously diagnosed with depression (aPR 1.49, (95% CI 1.35, 1.64) were positively associated with anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety symptoms were common among adults in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic. Strategies to screen and treat individuals at increased risk of anxiety, such as individuals experiencing financial hardship and individuals with prior diagnoses of depression, should be developed and implemented.