Navigating the Landscape: Barriers and Facilitators in Electronic Case Reporting Implementation Across Public Health Agencies.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to identify barriers and facilitators for electronic case reporting (eCR) implementation associated with "organizational" and "people"-based knowledge/processes and to identify patterns across implementation stages to guide best practices for eCR implementation at public health agencies. DESIGN: This qualitative study uses semistructured interviews with key stakeholders across 6 public health agencies. This study leveraged 2 conceptual frameworks for the development of the interview guide and initial codebook and the organization of the findings of thematic analysis. SETTING: Interviews were conducted virtually with informants from public health agencies at varying stages of eCR implementation. PARTICIPANTS: Investigators aimed to enroll 3 participants from each participating public health agency, including an eCR lead, a technical lead, and a leadership informant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patterns associated with barriers and facilitators across the eCR implementation stage. RESULTS: Twenty-eight themes were identified throughout interviews with 16 informants representing 6 public health agencies at varying stages of implementation. While there was variation across these levels, 3 distinct patterns were identified, including themes that were described (1) solely as a barrier or facilitator for eCR implementation regardless of implementation stages, (2) as a barrier for those in the early stages but evolved into a facilitator for those in later stages, and (3) as facilitators that were unique to the late-stage implementation. CONCLUSION: This study elucidated critical national, organizational, and person-centric best practices for public health agencies. These included the importance of engagement with the national eCR team, integrated development teams, cross-pollination, and developing solutions with the broader public health mission in mind. While the implementation of eCR was the focus of this study, the findings are generalizable to the broader data modernization efforts within public health agencies.

Sex difference in the discordance between Abbott Architect and EuroImmun serological assays.

Background: This study evaluated the discordance between Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG and EUROIMMUN SARS-COV-2 ELISA in a seroprevalence study. Methods: From June 10 to August 15, 2020, 8,246 specimens were dually evaluated by the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (EI) assays. Sex-stratified phi correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the concordance between Abbott and EI assay's quantitative results. Multivariable mixed-effect logistic models were implemented to evaluate the association between assay positivity and sex on a low prevalence sample while controlling for age, race, ethnicity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, immunosuppressive therapy, and autoimmune disease. Results: EI positivity among males was 2.1-fold that of females; however, no significant differences in Abbott positivity were observed between sexes. At the manufacturer-recommended threshold, the phi correlation coefficient for the Abbott and EI qualitative results among females (Φ = 0.47) was 34% greater than males (Φ = 0.35). The unadjusted and fully adjusted models yielded a strong association between sex and positive EI result for the low prevalence subgroup (unadjusted OR: 2.24, CI: 1.63, 3.11, adjusted OR: 3.40, CI: 2.15, 5.39). A similar analysis of Abbott positivity in the low prevalence subgroup did not find an association with any of the covariates examined. Significant quantitative and qualitative discordance was observed between Abbott and EI throughout the seroprevalence study. Our results suggest the presence of sex-associated specificity limitations with the EI assay. As these findings may extend to other anti-S assays utilized for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence investigations, further investigation is needed to evaluate the generalizability of these findings.