ABSTRACT
Underserved, low-income, rural and certain migrant populations have greater risks and higher incidences of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than more privileged populations. Current in-person testing methods have limitations, namely exposure risk, a requirement of accessible transportation to healthcare facilities, and economic barriers. Dried blood spots (DBS) samples are widely used for diagnostics in many infectious diseases including Rabies, HIV, Ebola viruses and newborn screening. Our goal was to determine the accuracy and reliability of measuring COVID-19 IgG in DBS compared to paired plasma samples in a population with known infection status and then apply this method to screen an underserved minority population with high risk for COVID-9 infection (unvaccinated, pregnant, low income, Hispanic women). To optimize the assay, we tested 22 nonpregnant women, 12 with positive prior PCR testing for SARS-CoV2 infection and 10 with negative PCR results. After the assay was optimized, we tested the assay in a vulnerable population with a high risk for infection, who were 52 Hispanic pregnant women without prior PCR testing or vaccination. DBS assay results in both groups showed an agreement of 100% with paired plasma samples. The availability of a DBS assay could enable people who may not have access or transportation to healthcare facilities to use DBS as a COVID-19 testing vehicle.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In late January, a worldwide crisis known as COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the WHO. Within only a few weeks, the outbreak took on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries. It was a significant issue to prevent and control COVID-19 on both national and global scales due to the dramatic increase in confirmed cases worldwide. Government guidelines provide a fundamental resource for communities, as they guide citizens on how to protect themselves against COVID-19, however, they also provide critical guidance for policy makers and healthcare professionals on how to take action to decrease the spread of COVID-19. We aimed to identify the differences and similarities between six different countries' (US, China, South Korea, UK, Brazil and Haiti) government-provided community and healthcare system guidelines, and to explore the relationship between guideline issue dates and the prevalence/incidence of COVID-19 cases. METHODS: To make these comparisons, this exploratory qualitative study used document analysis of government guidelines issued to the general public and to healthcare professionals. Documents were purposively sampled (N = 55) and analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: The major differences in the evaluation and testing criteria in the guidelines across the six countries centered around the priority of testing for COVID-19 in the general population, which was strongly dependent on each country's healthcare capacity. However, the most similar guidelines pertained to the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and methods to prevent its contraction. CONCLUSION: In the initial stages of the outbreak, certain strategies were universally employed to control the deadly virus's spread, including quarantining the sick, contact tracing, and social distancing. However, each country dealt with differing healthcare capacities, risks, threats, political and socioeconomic challenges, and distinct healthcare systems and infrastructure. Acknowledging these differences highlights the importance of examining the various countries' response to the COVID-19 pandemic with a nuanced view, as each of these factors shaped the government guidelines distributed to each country's communities and healthcare systems.