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.

Differences in influenza vaccination by gender identity and state-level gender equity policies: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2015-2019.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that there are one million transgender and over 340,000 gender non-conforming people in the United States, many of whom face significant health disparities including access to healthcare. Although previous studies have reported greater vaccine uptake in women compared to men, national-level estimates of influenza vaccine uptake among transgender and non-binary people are unknown. This study aims to characterize differences in influenza vaccine uptake by gender identity and examine associations between vaccination status and state-level gender equity policies. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data from adults participating in the 2015-2019 United States Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System surveys. Weighted prevalence differences (PDs) and associated confidence intervals (CIs) of being unvaccinated against influenza by self-reported gender identity were estimated using generalized linear regression models. RESULTS: Compared to cisgender women (unvaccinated prevalence = 57.3%), the prevalence of being unvaccinated was significantly higher among cisgender men (64.4%; PD = 7.0 per 100, 95% CI: 6.7-7.4), transgender women (65.4%; PD = 8.1 per 100, 95% CI 4.0-12.2), transgender men (64.6%; PD = 7.3 per 100, 95% CI: 2.7-11.8), and gender non-conforming individuals (64.6%; PD = 7.2 per 100, 95% CI: 1.3-13.2). This pattern was similar among individuals living in states with protective versus restrictive gender equity policies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results identified a disparity in influenza vaccine uptake among individuals across the gender spectrum. To improve vaccine equity, future research should explore barriers to and facilitators of vaccine uptake by gender identity, which could inform policies and health promotion interventions to improve uptake co-designed and implemented with the transgender and non-binary communities.

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.

Lives and Costs Saved by Expanding and Expediting Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: With multiple coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines available, understanding the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of increasing coverage levels and expediting vaccination is important. METHODS: We developed a computational model (transmission and age-stratified clinical and economics outcome model) representing the United States population, COVID-19 coronavirus spread (February 2020-December 2022), and vaccination to determine the impact of increasing coverage and expediting time to achieve coverage. RESULTS: When achieving a given vaccination coverage in 270 days (70% vaccine efficacy), every 1% increase in coverage can avert an average of 876 800 (217 000-2 398 000) cases, varying with the number of people already vaccinated. For example, each 1% increase between 40% and 50% coverage can prevent 1.5 million cases, 56 240 hospitalizations, and 6660 deaths; gain 77 590 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and save $602.8 million in direct medical costs and $1.3 billion in productivity losses. Expediting to 180 days could save an additional 5.8 million cases, 215 790 hospitalizations, 26 370 deaths, 206 520 QALYs, $3.5 billion in direct medical costs, and $4.3 billion in productivity losses. CONCLUSIONS: Our study quantifies the potential value of decreasing vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccination coverage and how this value may decrease with the time it takes to achieve coverage, emphasizing the need to reach high coverage levels as soon as possible, especially before the fall/winter.

A systems map of the economic considerations for vaccination: Application to hard-to-reach populations.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the economics of vaccination is essential to developing immunization strategies that can be employed successfully with limited resources, especially when vaccinating populations that are hard-to-reach. METHODS: Based on the input from interviews with 24 global experts on immunization economics, we developed a systems map of the mechanisms (i.e., necessary steps or components) involved in vaccination, and associated costs and benefits, focused at the service delivery level. We used this to identify the mechanisms that may be different for hard-to-reach populations. RESULTS: The systems map shows different mechanisms that determine whether a person may or may not get vaccinated and the potential health and economic impacts of doing so. The map is divided into two parts: 1) the costs of vaccination, representing each of the mechanisms involved in getting vaccinated (n = 23 vaccination mechanisms), their associated direct vaccination costs (n = 18 vaccination costs), and opportunity costs (n = 5 opportunity costs), 2) the impact of vaccination, representing mechanisms after vaccine delivery (n = 13 impact mechanisms), their associated health effects (n = 10 health effects for beneficiary and others), and economic benefits (n = 13 immediate and secondary economic benefits and costs). Mechanisms that, when interrupted or delayed, can result in populations becoming hard-to-reach include getting vaccines and key stakeholders (e.g., beneficiaries/caregivers, vaccinators) to a vaccination site, as well as vaccine administration at the site. CONCLUSION: Decision-makers can use this systems map to understand where steps in the vaccination process may be interrupted or weak and identify where gaps exist in the understanding of the economics of vaccination. With improved understanding of system-wide effects, this map can help decision-makers inform targeted interventions and policies to increase vaccination coverage in hard-to-reach populations.

The Potential Clinical and Economic Value of a Human Papillomavirus Primary Screening Test That Additionally Identifies Genotypes 31, 45, 51, and 52 Individually.

BACKGROUND: Although current human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype screening tests identify genotypes 16 and 18 and do not specifically identify other high-risk types, a new extended genotyping test identifies additional individual (31, 45, 51, and 52) and groups (33/58, 35/39/68, and 56/59/66) of high-risk genotypes. METHODS: We developed a Markov model of the HPV disease course and evaluated the clinical and economic value of HPV primary screening with Onclarity (BD Diagnostics, Franklin Lakes, NJ) capable of extended genotyping in a cohort of women 30 years or older. Women with certain genotypes were later rescreened instead of undergoing immediate colposcopy and varied which genotypes were rescreened, disease progression rate, and test cost. RESULTS: Assuming 100% compliance with screening, HPV primary screening using current tests resulted in 25,194 invasive procedures and 48 invasive cervical cancer (ICC) cases per 100,000 women. Screening with extended genotyping (100% compliance) and later rescreening women with certain genotypes averted 903 to 3163 invasive procedures and resulted in 0 to 3 more ICC cases compared with current HPV primary screening tests. Extended genotyping was cost-effective ($2298-$7236/quality-adjusted life year) when costing $75 and cost saving (median, $0.3-$1.0 million) when costing $43. When the probabilities of disease progression increased (2-4 times), extended genotyping was not cost-effective because it resulted in more ICC cases and accrued fewer quality-adjusted life years. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified the conditions under which extended genotyping was cost-effective and even cost saving compared with current tests. A key driver of cost-effectiveness is the risk of disease progression, which emphasizes the need to better understand such risks in different populations.

What If the Influenza Vaccine Did Not Offer Such Variable Protection?

BACKGROUND: The protection that an influenza vaccine offers can vary significantly from person to person due to differences in immune systems, body types, and other factors. The question, then, is what is the value of efforts to reduce this variability such as making vaccines more personalized and tailored to individuals. METHODS: We developed a compartment model of the United States to simulate different influenza seasons and the impact of reducing the variability in responses to the influenza vaccine across the population. RESULTS: Going from a vaccine that varied in efficacy (0-30%) to one that had a uniform 30% efficacy for everyone averted 16.0-31.2 million cases, $1.9-$3.6 billion in direct medical costs, and $16.1-$42.7 billion in productivity losses. Going from 0-50% in efficacy to just 50% for everyone averted 27.7-38.6 million cases, $3.3-$4.6 billion in direct medical costs, and $28.8-$57.4 billion in productivity losses. Going from 0-70% to 70% averted 33.6-54.1 million cases, $4.0-$6.5 billion in direct medical costs, and $44.8-$64.7 billion in productivity losses. CONCLUSIONS: This study quantifies for policy makers, funders, and vaccine developers and manufacturers the potential impact of efforts to reduce variability in the protection that influenza vaccines offer (eg, developing vaccines that are more personalized to different individual factors).

What Is the Value of Different Zika Vaccination Strategies to Prevent and Mitigate Zika Outbreaks?

BACKGROUND: While the 2015-2016 Zika epidemics prompted accelerated vaccine development, decision makers need to know the potential economic value of vaccination strategies. METHODS: We developed models of Honduras, Brazil, and Puerto Rico, simulated targeting different populations for Zika vaccination (women of childbearing age, school-aged children, young adults, and everyone) and then introduced various Zika outbreaks. Sensitivity analyses varied vaccine characteristics. RESULTS: With a 2% attack rate ($5 vaccination), compared to no vaccination, vaccinating women of childbearing age cost $314-$1664 per case averted ($790-$4221/disability-adjusted life-year [DALY] averted) in Honduras, and saved $847-$1644/case averted in Brazil, and $3648-$4177/case averted in Puerto Rico, varying with vaccination coverage and efficacy (societal perspective). Vaccinating school-aged children cost $718-$1849/case averted (≤$5002/DALY averted) in Honduras, saved $819-$1609/case averted in Brazil, and saved $3823-$4360/case averted in Puerto Rico. Vaccinating young adults cost $310-$1666/case averted ($731-$4017/DALY averted) in Honduras, saved $953-$1703/case averted in Brazil, and saved $3857-$4372/case averted in Puerto Rico. Vaccinating everyone averted more cases but cost more, decreasing cost savings per case averted. Vaccination resulted in more cost savings and better outcomes at higher attack rates. CONCLUSIONS: When considering transmission, while vaccinating everyone naturally averted the most cases, specifically targeting women of childbearing age or young adults was the most cost-effective.

Epidemiologic and economic impact of pharmacies as vaccination locations during an influenza epidemic.

INTRODUCTION: During an influenza epidemic, where early vaccination is crucial, pharmacies may be a resource to increase vaccine distribution reach and capacity. METHODS: We utilized an agent-based model of the US and a clinical and economics outcomes model to simulate the impact of different influenza epidemics and the impact of utilizing pharmacies in addition to traditional (hospitals, clinic/physician offices, and urgent care centers) locations for vaccination for the year 2017. RESULTS: For an epidemic with a reproductive rate (R0) of 1.30, adding pharmacies with typical business hours averted 11.9 million symptomatic influenza cases, 23,577 to 94,307 deaths, $1.0 billion in direct (vaccine administration and healthcare) costs, $4.2-44.4 billion in productivity losses, and $5.2-45.3 billion in overall costs (varying with mortality rate). Increasing the epidemic severity (R0 of 1.63), averted 16.0 million symptomatic influenza cases, 35,407 to 141,625 deaths, $1.9 billion in direct costs, $6.0-65.5 billion in productivity losses, and $7.8-67.3 billion in overall costs (varying with mortality rate). Extending pharmacy hours averted up to 16.5 million symptomatic influenza cases, 145,278 deaths, $1.9 billion direct costs, $4.1 billion in productivity loss, and $69.5 billion in overall costs. Adding pharmacies resulted in a cost-benefit of $4.1 to $11.5 billion, varying epidemic severity, mortality rate, pharmacy hours, location vaccination rate, and delay in the availability of the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Administering vaccines through pharmacies in addition to traditional locations in the event of an epidemic can increase vaccination coverage, mitigating up to 23.7 million symptomatic influenza cases, providing cost-savings up to $2.8 billion to third-party payers and $99.8 billion to society. Pharmacies should be considered as points of dispensing epidemic vaccines in addition to traditional settings as soon as vaccines become available.