Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; : 1-9, 2024 May 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38770586

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Understanding characteristics of healthcare personnel (HCP) with SARS-CoV-2 infection supports the development and prioritization of interventions to protect this important workforce. We report detailed characteristics of HCP who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from April 20, 2020 through December 31, 2021. METHODS: CDC collaborated with Emerging Infections Program sites in 10 states to interview HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection (case-HCP) about their demographics, underlying medical conditions, healthcare roles, exposures, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and COVID-19 vaccination status. We grouped case-HCP by healthcare role. To describe residential social vulnerability, we merged geocoded HCP residential addresses with CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) values at the census tract level. We defined highest and lowest SVI quartiles as high and low social vulnerability, respectively. RESULTS: Our analysis included 7,531 case-HCP. Most case-HCP with roles as certified nursing assistant (CNA) (444, 61.3%), medical assistant (252, 65.3%), or home healthcare worker (HHW) (225, 59.5%) reported their race and ethnicity as either non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic. More than one third of HHWs (166, 45.2%), CNAs (283, 41.7%), and medical assistants (138, 37.9%) reported a residential address in the high social vulnerability category. The proportion of case-HCP who reported using recommended PPE at all times when caring for patients with COVID-19 was lowest among HHWs compared with other roles. CONCLUSIONS: To mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in healthcare settings, infection prevention, and control interventions should be specific to HCP roles and educational backgrounds. Additional interventions are needed to address high social vulnerability among HHWs, CNAs, and medical assistants.

2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 7(4): e245611, 2024 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38587842

ABSTRACT

Importance: Long-term symptoms, lasting more than 4 consecutive weeks after acute COVID-19 disease, are an important consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Many prior studies have lacked a non-SARS-CoV-2-infected control population to distinguish background prevalence of symptoms from the direct impact of COVID-19 disease. Objective: To examine the prevalence of long-term physical and mental health symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large population of blood donors based on self-report and serologic test results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included American Red Cross blood donors (aged ≥18 years) who were surveyed between February 22 and April 21, 2022, about new long-term symptoms arising after March 2020 and their SARS-CoV-2 infection status. All participants underwent at least 1 serologic test for antinucleocapsid antibodies between June 15, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection as defined by a self-reported, confirmed acute infection or antinucleocapsid antibody positivity. Main Outcomes and Measures: New long-term symptoms since March 2020, including 5 symptom categories (neurologic, gastrointestinal, respiratory and cardiac, mental health, and other). Results: Among 818 361 individuals who received the survey, 272 965 (33.4%) responded, with 238 828 meeting the inclusion criteria (138 576 [58.0%] female; median [IQR] age, 59.0 [47.0-67.0] years). Of the 83 015 individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 43.3% reported new long-term symptoms compared with 22.1% of those without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. After controlling for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and number of underlying conditions, those with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection had an increased odds of new long-term symptoms compared with those without (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.55; 95% CI, 2.51-2.61). Female sex and a history of chronic conditions were associated with new long-term symptoms. Long-term symptoms in the other category (AOR, 4.14; 95% CI, 4.03-4.25), which included changes in taste or smell, and the respiratory and cardiac symptom categories (AOR, 3.21; 95% CI, 3.12-3.31) were most associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mental health long-term symptoms were also associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (AOR, 1.05; 95%, CI, 1.02-1.08). Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that long-term symptoms lasting more than 4 weeks are common in the adult population, but there is a significantly higher prevalence among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Continued efforts to define and track long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 using a control group without infection and serologic information to include those who had asymptomatic or unidentified infections are needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Female , Adolescent , Middle Aged , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Blood Donors , Cross-Sectional Studies , Control Groups
3.
Sci Rep ; 14(1): 6539, 2024 03 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38503862

ABSTRACT

Louisiana experienced high morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. To assess possible explanatory factors, we conducted a cohort study (ClinSeqSer) of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in New Orleans during August 2020-September 2021. Following enrollment, we reviewed medical charts, and performed SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing on nasal and saliva specimens. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess associations between patient characteristics and severe illness, defined as ≥ 6 L/min oxygen or intubation. Among 456 patients, median age was 56 years, 277 (60.5%) were Black non-Hispanic, 436 (95.2%) had underlying health conditions, and 358 were unvaccinated (92.0% of 389 verified). Overall, 187 patients (40.1%) had severe illness; 60 (13.1%) died during admission. In multivariable models, severe illness was associated with age ≥ 65 years (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.22-3.56), hospitalization > 5 days after illness onset (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01-2.21), and SARS CoV-2 cycle threshold (Ct) result of < 32 in saliva (OR 4.79, 95% CI 1.22-18.77). Among patients who were predominantly Black non-Hispanic, unvaccinated and with underlying health conditions, approximately 1 in 3 patients had severe COVID-19. Older age and delayed time to admission might have contributed to high case-severity. An association between case-severity and low Ct value in saliva warrants further investigation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Middle Aged , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Cohort Studies , New Orleans , Hospitalization
4.
Vaccine ; 42(10): 2543-2552, 2024 Apr 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37973512

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose. RESULTS: Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Infant, Newborn , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Vaccines, Combined , mRNA Vaccines , Case-Control Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , RNA, Messenger , Delivery of Health Care
5.
J Med Internet Res ; 25: e42586, 2023 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36525332

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The task complexity involved in connecting to telehealth video visits may disproportionately impact health care access in populations already experiencing inequities. Human intermediaries can be a strategy for addressing health care access disparities by acting as technology helpers to reduce the cognitive load demands required to learn and use patient-facing telehealth technologies. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a cognitive load theory-informed pilot intervention involving warm accompaniment telehealth helping sessions with patients at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). We demonstrate how to design and report recruitment methods, reach, delivery process, and the preliminary impact of a novel equity-focused intervention. METHODS: Early into the COVID-19 pandemic a telehealth helping session was offered to patients at FQHC via phone. Graduate students led the sessions on conducting a telehealth video test run or helping with patient portal log-in. They systematically recorded their recruitment efforts, intervention observations, and daily reflection notes. Following the intervention, we asked the intervention participants to participate in an interview and all patients who had telehealth visits during and 4 weeks before and after the intervention period to complete a survey. Electronic health records were reviewed to assess telehealth visit format changes. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses of the recruitment records, electronic health record data, and surveys were performed. Through integrative analysis, we developed process-related themes and recommendations for future equity-focused telehealth interventions. RESULTS: Of the 239 eligible patients, 34 (14.2%) completed the intervention and 3 (1.2%) completed subsequent interviews. The intervention participants who completed the survey (n=15) had lower education and less technological experience than the nonintervention survey participants (n=113). We identified 3 helping strategies for cognitive load reduction: providing step-by-step guidance for configuring and learning, building rapport to create confidence while problem-solving, and being on the same page to counter informational distractions. Intervention participants reported increased understanding but found that learning the video visit software was more difficult than nonintervention participants. A comparison of visit experiences did not find differences in difficulty (cognitive load measure) using telehealth-related technologies, changes to visit modality, or reported technical problems during the visit. However, the intervention participants were significantly less satisfied with the video visits. CONCLUSIONS: Although a limited number of people participated in the intervention, it may have reached individuals more likely to need technology assistance. We postulate that significant differences between intervention and nonintervention participants were rooted in baseline differences between the groups' education level, technology experience, and technology use frequency; however, small sample sizes limit conclusions. The barriers encountered during the intervention suggest that patients at FQHC may require both improved access to web-based technologies and human intermediary support to make telehealth video visits feasible. Future large, randomized, equity-focused studies should investigate blended strategies to facilitate video visit access.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Humans , United States , Pandemics , Pilot Projects , Students , Cognition
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...