Evaluation of the Homeless Management Information System for COVID-19 Surveillance Among People Experiencing Homelessness.

BACKGROUND: Variable and incomplete reporting of housing status creates challenges in the surveillance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among the homeless population in Los Angeles County (LA County) and nationwide. METHODS: We developed standard investigation procedures to assess the housing status of LA County COVID-19 patients. Using data sharing procedures, we matched COVID-19 patients to Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) client profiles and supplemented with additional data sources for contributory data points and to further housing status ascertainment. RESULTS: We identified 10 586 COVID-19 patients among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) between 30 March 2020 and 30 December 2021; 2801 (26.5%) patients were first identified from HMIS profile matches, 1877 (17.7%) from quarantine/isolation housing intake rosters, 573 (5.4%) from hospital records, 749 (7.1%) from case and contact interviews, 3659 (34.6%) directly from PEH medical and service providers, and 927 (8.8%) had unknown sources. Among COVID-19 patients matched to HMIS profiles, 5351 (42.5%) were confirmed to be PEH at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Interoperability between public health data, HMIS, and external partners have been critical components in evaluating the impact of COVID-19 among the LA County homeless population. No one data source was complete for COVID-19 surveillance in this population.

Supporting Children's Social Connection and Well-Being in School-Age Care: Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Connect, Promote, and Protect Program.

BACKGROUND: School-age care, such as outside school hours care (OSHC), is the fastest-growing childhood education sector in Australia. OSHC provides a unique opportunity to deliver programs to enhance primary school-age children's social, emotional, physical, and cognitive well-being. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to pilot the co-designed Connect, Promote, and Protect Program (CP3) and conduct formative and process evaluations on how well the CP3 achieved its intended aims, ascertain areas for improvement, and determine how the CP3 model could be better sustained and extended into OSHC settings. METHODS: A naturalistic formative and process evaluation of the CP3 implementation was undertaken at 1 and then 5 OSHC sites. Qualitative and quantitative feedback from stakeholders (eg, children, OSHC educators, volunteers, and families) was collected and incorporated iteratively for program improvement. RESULTS: The formative and process evaluations demonstrated high program engagement, appropriateness, and acceptability. Co-design with children was viewed as highly acceptable and empowered children to be part of the decision-making in OSHC. Feedback highlighted how the CP3 supported children in the 4 CP3 domains: Build Well-being and Resilience, Broaden Horizons, Inspire and Engage, and Connect Communities. Qualitative reports suggested that children's well-being and resilience were indirectly supported through the Broaden Horizons, Inspire and Engage, and Connect Communities CP3 principles. Matched-sample 2-tailed t tests found that children's prosocial behaviors increased (mean difference=0.64; P=.04; t57=-2.06, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.02) and peer problems decreased (mean difference=-0.69; P=.01; t57=2.57, 95% CI 0.14-1.13) after participating in the CP3. Program feasibility was high but dependent on additional resources and CP3 coordinator support. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, the CP3 is the first co-designed well-being program developed and evaluated specifically for OSHC services. This early evidence is promising. The CP3 may provide a unique opportunity to respond to the voices of children in OSHC and those that support them through creative and engaging co-designed activities. Our research suggests that CP3 provides OSHC with a framework and high-quality program planning tool that promotes tailored interventions developed based on the unique needs and preferences of those who will use them.

Financial Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccines Among People Experiencing Homelessness.

INTRODUCTION: Novel strategies are needed to address barriers to COVID-19 vaccination among people experiencing homelessness (PEH), a population that faces increased COVID-19 risk. Although growing evidence suggests that financial incentives for vaccination are acceptable to PEH, their impact on uptake is unknown. This study aimed to assess whether offering $50 gift cards was associated with the uptake of the first doses of COVID-19 vaccine among PEH in Los Angeles County. METHODS: Vaccination clinics began on March 15, 2021; the financial incentive program was implemented from September 26, 2021 to April 30, 2022. Interrupted time-series analysis with quasi-Poisson regression was used to evaluate the level and slope change in the number of weekly first doses administered. Time-varying confounders included the weekly number of clinics and the weekly number of new cases. Demographic characteristics were compared for PEH vaccinated before and after the implementation of the incentive program using chi-square tests. RESULTS: Offering financial incentives was associated with the administration of 2.5 times (95% CI=1.8, 3.1) more first doses than would have been expected without the program. Level (-0.184, 95% CI= -1.166, -0.467) and slope change (0.042, 95% CI=0.031, 0.053) were observed. Individuals who were unsheltered, aged <55 years, and identified as Black or African American accounted for a higher percentage of those vaccinated during the post-intervention period than during the pre-intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives may be an effective tool for increasing vaccine uptake among PEH, but important ethical considerations must be made to avoid coercion of vulnerable populations.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of a community pharmacy discharge medication reconciliation service on unplanned hospital readmissions - The DCMedsRec trial.

INTRODUCTION: A substantial proportion of hospital admissions and readmissions are directly attributable to preventable medication-related harm. Interventions that reduce these harms could avert significant suffering and healthcare costs. OBJECTIVES: The Discharge Medications Reconciliation (DCMedsRec) trial will evaluate a structured medication reconciliation service by community pharmacists post hospital discharge on the risk of 30-day unplanned readmission. Electronic access to the Hospital Discharge Summary via My Health Record will underpin this service. METHODS: DCMedsRec is a non-blinded randomised controlled trial of an intervention by community pharmacists within 30 days of hospital discharge in Melbourne, Australia. Patients discharged from hospital will be assessed by a hospital pharmacist for trial eligibility. If eligible, patients will be randomised to either a control or intervention group by sequentially marked sealed envelopes. Intervention patients receive an invitation to the DCMedsRec service at a participating community pharmacy, who will be reimbursed. Control patients will receive usual care. A Number Needed to Treat of 20 will require 293 DCMedsRec interventions to achieve 80% power. With a predicted 30% uptake, a minimum sample of 977 in the intervention arm is required. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome will be the rate of 30-day unplanned hospital readmission in intervention (DCMedsRec) versus usual care groups. Secondary analyses will evaluate the economic impact of the intervention and a qualitative thematic analysis of the experience and value of the service for both patients and service providers (community pharmacists). ANALYSIS: An intention-to-treat analysis will be used to assess intervention efficacy and results will be reported using risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Cost-effectiveness analysis will compare within-trial costs and outcomes of the DCMedsRec versus usual care from a health-system perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION AND FUNDING: This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register and funded by the Australian Digital Health Agency.