Utilizing a university testing program to estimate relative effectiveness of monovalent COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccine versus two-dose primary series against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies utilizing the test-negative design are typically conducted in clinical settings, rather than community populations, leading to bias in VE estimates against mild disease and limited information on VE in healthy young adults. In a community-based university population, we utilized data from a large SARS-CoV-2 testing program to estimate relative VE of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine primary series and monovalent booster dose versus primary series only against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection from September 2021 to July 2022. We used the test-negative design and logistic regression implemented via generalized estimating equations adjusted for age, calendar time, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and testing frequency (proxy for test-seeking behavior) to estimate relative VE. Analyses included 2,218 test-positive cases (59 % received monovalent booster dose) and 9,615 test-negative controls (62 %) from 9,066 individuals, with median age of 21 years, mostly students (71 %), White (56 %) or Asian (28 %), and with few comorbidities (3 %). More cases (23 %) than controls (6 %) had COVID-19-like illness. Estimated adjusted relative VE of primary series and monovalent booster dose versus primary series only against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 40 % (95 % CI: 33-47 %) during the overall analysis period and 46 % (39-52 %) during the period of Omicron circulation. Relative VE was greater for those without versus those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (41 %, 34-48 % versus 33 %, 9 %-52 %, P < 0.001). Relative VE was also greater in the six months after receiving a booster dose (41 %, 33-47 %) compared to more than six months (27 %, 8-42 %), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.06). In this relatively young and healthy adult population, an mRNA monovalent booster dose provided increased protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, overall and with the Omicron variant. University testing programs may be utilized for estimating VE in healthy young adults, a population that is not well-represented by routine VE studies.

Previous Health Care Experiences' Influence on Health Care Perceptions Among Residents of Six Homeless Shelters in Seattle, Washington, July-October 2021.

Purpose: The study purpose was to learn and describe 1) where homeless shelter residents receive health care, 2) what contributes to positive or negative health care experiences among shelter residents, and 3) shelter resident perceptions toward health care. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (SSIs) utilizing purposive sampling and focus group discussions (FGDs) utilizing convenience sampling were conducted at 6 homeless shelters in Seattle-King County, Washington, during July-October 2021. All residents (age ≥18) were eligible to participate. SSIs were conducted with 25 residents, and 8 FGDs were held. Thematic analysis was conducted using Dedoose. Results: Participants received health care in settings ranging from no regular care to primary care providers. Four elements emerged as contributing positively and negatively to health care experiences: 1) ability to access health care financially, physically, and technologically; 2) clarity of communication from providers and staff about appointment logistics, diagnoses, and treatment options; 3) ease of securing timely follow-up services; and 4) respect versus stigma and discrimination from providers and staff. Participants who felt positively toward health care found low- or no-cost care to be widely available and encouraged others to seek care. However, some participants described health care in the United States as greedy, classist, discriminatory, and untrustworthy. Participants reported delaying care and self-medicating in anticipation of discrimination. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate that while people experiencing homelessness can have positive experiences with health care, many have faced negative interactions with health systems. Improving the patient experience for those experiencing homelessness can increase engagement and improve health outcomes.

Trends and factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccination intent among residents and staff in six Seattle homeless shelters, March 2020 to August 2021.

Introduction: Achieving high COVID-19 vaccination coverage in homeless shelters is critical in preventing morbidity, mortality, and outbreaks, however, vaccination coverage remains lower among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) than the general population. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to retrospectively describe attitudes and identify factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccination intent among shelter residents and staff during March 2020 - August 2021. To identify factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccine intent becoming more positive overall compared to other attitudes, we utilized a Poisson model to calculate Risk Ratios with robust standard errors, adjusting for confounding by shelter site and demographic variables determined a priori. Results: From July 12 - August 2, 2021, 97 residents and 20 staff participated in surveys across six shelters in Seattle King County, Washington. Intent to be vaccinated against COVID-19 increased from 45.3 % (n = 53) when recalling attitudes in March 2020 to 74.4 % (n = 87) as of August 2021, and was similar among residents and staff. Many participants (43.6 %, n = 51) indicated feeling increasingly accepting about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine since March 2020, while 13.7 % (n = 16) changed back and forth, 10.3 % (n = 12) became more hesitant, and 32.5 % (n = 38) had no change in intent. In the model examining the relationship between becoming more positive about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine compared to all other attitudes (n = 116), we found a 57.2 % increase in vaccine acceptability (RR 1.57; 95 % CI: 1.01, 2.45) among those who reported worsening mental health since the start of the pandemic. Conclusions: Findings highlight opportunities to improve communication with residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination and support a need for continued dialogue and a person-centered approach to understanding the sociocultural complexities and dynamism of vaccine attitudes at shelters.Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT04141917.

Genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants on a university campus.

Novel variants continue to emerge in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. University testing programs may provide timely epidemiologic and genomic surveillance data to inform public health responses. We conducted testing from September 2021 to February 2022 in a university population under vaccination and indoor mask mandates. A total of 3,048 of 24,393 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR; whole genome sequencing identified 209 Delta and 1,730 Omicron genomes of the 1,939 total sequenced. Compared to Delta, Omicron had a shorter median serial interval between genetically identical, symptomatic infections within households (2 versus 6 days, P = 0.021). Omicron also demonstrated a greater peak reproductive number (2.4 versus 1.8), and a 1.07 (95% confidence interval: 0.58, 1.57; P < 0.0001) higher mean cycle threshold value. Despite near universal vaccination and stringent mitigation measures, Omicron rapidly displaced the Delta variant to become the predominant viral strain and led to a surge in cases in a university population.

SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology on a Public University Campus in Washington State.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate a testing program to facilitate control of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission at a large university and measure spread in the university community using viral genome sequencing. METHODS: Our prospective longitudinal study used remote contactless enrollment, daily mobile symptom and exposure tracking, and self-swab sample collection. Individuals were tested if the participant was exposed to a known SARS-CoV-2-infected person, developed new symptoms, or reported high-risk behavior (such as attending an indoor gathering without masking or social distancing), if a member of a group experiencing an outbreak, or at enrollment. Study participants included students, staff, and faculty at an urban public university during the Autumn quarter of 2020. RESULTS: We enrolled 16 476 individuals, performed 29 783 SARS-CoV-2 tests, and detected 236 infections. Seventy-five percent of positive cases reported at least 1 of the following: symptoms (60.8%), exposure (34.7%), or high-risk behaviors (21.5%). Greek community affiliation was the strongest risk factor for testing positive, and molecular epidemiology results suggest that specific large gatherings were responsible for several outbreaks. CONCLUSIONS: A testing program focused on individuals with symptoms and unvaccinated persons who participate in large campus gatherings may be effective as part of a comprehensive university-wide mitigation strategy to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

"Asking Is Never Bad, I Would Venture on That": Patients' Perspectives on Routine Pain Screening in VA Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: Screening for pain in routine care is one of the efforts that the Veterans Health Administration has adopted in its national pain management strategy. We aimed to understand patients' perspectives and preferences about the experience of being screened for pain in primary care. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews captured patient perceptions and preferences of pain screening, assessment, and management. SUBJECTS: We completed interviews with 36 patients: 29 males and seven females ranging in age from 28 to 94 years from three geographically distinct VA health care systems. METHODS: We evaluated transcripts using constant comparison and identified emergent themes. RESULTS: Theme 1: Pain screening can "determine the tone of the examination"; Theme 2: Screening can initiate communication about pain; Theme 3: Screening can facilitate patient recall and reflection; Theme 4: Screening for pain may help identify under-reported psychological pain, mental distress, and suicidality; Theme 5: Patient recommendations about how to improve screening for pain. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that patients perceive meaningful, positive impacts of routine pain screening that as yet have not been considered in the literature. Specifically, screening for pain may help capture mental health concerns that may otherwise not emerge.