Missing data and missed infections: investigating racial and ethnic disparities in SARS-CoV-2 testing and infection rates in Holyoke, Massachusetts.

Routinely collected testing data have been a vital resource for public health response during the COVID-19 pandemic and have revealed the extent to which Black and Hispanic persons have borne a disproportionate burden of SARS-CoV-2 infections and hospitalizations in the United States. However, missing race and ethnicity data and missed infections due to testing disparities limit the interpretation of testing data and obscure the true toll of the pandemic. We investigated potential bias arising from these 2 types of missing data through a case study carried out in Holyoke, Massachusetts, during the prevaccination phase of the pandemic. First, we estimated SARS-CoV-2 testing and case rates by race and ethnicity, imputing missing data using a joint modeling approach. We then investigated disparities in SARS-CoV-2 reported case rates and missed infections by comparing case rate estimates with estimates derived from a COVID-19 seroprevalence survey. Compared with the non-Hispanic White population, we found that the Hispanic population had similar testing rates (476 tested per 1000 vs 480 per 1000) but twice the case rate (8.1% vs 3.7%). We found evidence of inequitable testing, with a higher rate of missed infections in the Hispanic population than in the non-Hispanic White population (79 infections missed per 1000 vs 60 missed per 1000).

Disparities in SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Race, Ethnicity, Language, and Social Vulnerability: Evidence from a Citywide Seroprevalence Study in Massachusetts, USA.

OBJECTIVES: Uncovering and addressing disparities in infectious disease outbreaks require a rapid, methodical understanding of local epidemiology. We conducted a seroprevalence study of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Holyoke, Massachusetts, a majority Hispanic city with high levels of socio-economic disadvantage to estimate seroprevalence and identify disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We invited 2000 randomly sampled households between 11/5/2020 and 12/31/2020 to complete questionnaires and provide dried blood spots for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. We calculated seroprevalence based on the presence of IgG antibodies using a weighted Bayesian procedure that incorporated uncertainty in antibody test sensitivity and specificity and accounted for household clustering. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty households including 472 individuals were enrolled. Three hundred twenty-eight individuals underwent antibody testing. Citywide seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG was 13.1% (95% CI 6.9-22.3) compared to 9.8% of the population infected based on publicly reported cases. Seroprevalence was 16.1% (95% CI 6.2-31.8) among Hispanic individuals compared to 9.4% (95% CI 4.6-16.4) among non-Hispanic white individuals. Seroprevalence was higher among Spanish-speaking households (21.9%; 95% CI 8.3-43.9) compared to English-speaking households (10.2%; 95% CI 5.2-18.0) and among individuals in high social vulnerability index (SVI) areas based on the CDC SVI (14.4%; 95% CI 7.1-25.5) compared to low SVI areas (8.2%; 95% CI 3.1-16.9). CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence in a city with high levels of social vulnerability was 13.1% during the pre-vaccination period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hispanic individuals and individuals in communities characterized by high SVI were at the highest risk of infection. Public health interventions should be designed to ensure that individuals in high social vulnerability communities have access to the tools to combat COVID-19.

Setting global research priorities for private sector child health service delivery: Results from a CHNRI exercise.

BACKGROUND: The private health sector is an important source of sick child care, yet evidence gaps persist in best practices for integrated management of private sector child health services. Further, there is no prioritized research agenda to address these gaps. We used a Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) process to identify priority research questions in response to these evidence gaps. CHNRI is a consultative approach that entails prioritizing research questions by evaluating them against standardized criteria. METHODS: We engaged geographically and occupationally diverse experts in the private health sector and child health. Eighty-nine experts agreed to participate and provided 150 priority research questions. We consolidated submitted questions to reduce duplication into a final list of 50. We asked participants to complete an online survey to rank each question against 11 pre-determined criteria in four categories: (i) answerability, (ii) research feasibility, (iii) sustainability/equity, and (iv) importance/potential impact. Statistical data analysis was conducted in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC, USA). We weighted all 11 evaluation criteria equally to calculate the research priority score and average expert agreement for each question. We disaggregated results by location in high-income vs low- and middle-income countries. RESULTS: Forty-nine participants (55.1%) completed the online survey, including 33 high-income and 16 low- and middle-income country respondents. The top, prioritized research question asks whether accreditation or regulation of private clinical and non-clinical sources of care would improve integrated management of childhood illness services. Four of the top ten research priorities were related to adherence to case management protocols. Other top research priorities were related to training and supportive supervision, digital health, and infant and newborn care. Research priorities among high-income and low- and middle-income country respondents were highly correlated. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic exercise conducted to define research priorities for the management of childhood illness in the private sector. The research priorities put forth in this CHNRI exercise aim to stimulate interest from policy makers, program managers, researchers, and donors to respond to and help close evidence gaps hindering the acceleration of reductions in child mortality through private sector approaches.