Representativeness of a national, probability-based panel survey of COVID-19 isolation practices-United States, 2020-2022.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received surveillance data on how many people tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, but there was little information about what individuals did to mitigate transmission. To fill the information gap, we conducted an online, probability-based survey among a nationally representative panel of adults living in the United States to better understand the behaviors of individuals following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. Given the low response rates commonly associated with panel surveys, we assessed how well the survey data aligned with CDC surveillance data from March, 2020 to March, 2022. We used CDC surveillance data to calculate monthly aggregated COVID-19 case counts and compared these to monthly COVID-19 case counts captured by our survey during the same period. We found high correlation between our overall survey data estimates and monthly case counts reported to the CDC during the analytic period (r: +0.94; p < 0.05). When stratified according to demographic characteristics, correlations remained high. These correlations strengthened our confidence that the panel survey participants were reflective of the cases reported to CDC and demonstrated the potential value of panel surveys to inform decision making.

Experience of Public Health Departments in Implementation of COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Case investigation and contact tracing (CI/CT) are fundamental public health efforts widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic to mitigate transmission. This study investigated how state, local, and tribal public health departments used CI/CT during the COVID-19 pandemic, including CI/CT methodology, staffing models, training and support, and efforts to identify or prioritize populations disproportionately affected by COVID-19. METHODS: During March and April 2022, we conducted key informant interviews with up to 3 public health officials from 43 state, local, and tribal public health departments. From audio-recorded and transcribed interviews, we used the framework method to analyze key themes. RESULTS: Major adjustments to CI/CT protocols during the pandemic included (1) prioritizing populations for outreach; (2) implementing automated outreach for nonprioritized groups, particularly during COVID-19 surges; (3) discontinuing contact tracing and focusing exclusively on case investigation; and (4) adding innovations to provide additional support. Key informants also discussed the utility of having backup staffing to support overwhelmed public health departments and spoke to the difficulty in "right-sizing" the public health workforce, with COVID-19 surges leaving public health departments understaffed as case rates rose and overstaffed as case rates fell. CONCLUSIONS: When addressing future epidemics or outbreaks, public health officials should consider strategies that improve the effectiveness of CI/CT efforts over time, such as prioritizing populations based on disproportionate risk, implementing automated outreach, developing models that provide flexible additional staffing resources as cases rise and fall among local public health departments, incorporating demographic data in laboratory reporting, providing community connections and support, and having a system of self-notification of contacts.

Design and Modification of COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing Interview Scripts Used by Health Departments Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to (1) document how health departments (HDs) developed COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing (CI/CT) interview scripts and the topics covered, and (2) understand how and why HDs modified those scripts. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of CI/CT interview scripts and in-depth key informant interviews with public health officials in 14 HDs. Collected scripts represent 3 distinct points (initial, the majority of which were time stamped May 2020; interim, spanning from September 2020 to August 2021; and current, as of April 2022). SETTING: Fourteen state, local, and tribal health jurisdictions and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six public health officials involved in leading CI/CT from 14 state, local, and tribal health jurisdictions (6 states, 3 cities, 4 counties, and 1 tribal area). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Interview script elements included in CI/CT interview scripts over time. RESULTS: Many COVID-19 CI/CT scripts were developed by modifying questions from scripts used for other communicable diseases. Early in the pandemic, scripts included guidance on isolation/quarantine and discussed symptoms of COVID-19. As the pandemic evolved, the length of scripts increased substantially, with significant additions on contact elicitation, vaccinations, isolation/quarantine recommendations, and testing. Drivers of script changes included changes in our understanding of how the virus spreads, risk factors and symptoms, new treatments, new variants, vaccine development, and adjustments to CDC's official isolation and quarantine guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings offer suggestions about components to include in future CI/CT efforts, including educating members of the public about the disease and its symptoms, offering mitigation guidance, and providing sufficient support and resources to help people act on that guidance. Assessing the correlation between script length and number of completed interviews or other quality and performance measures could be an area for future study.

Home-Based Testing and COVID-19 Isolation Recommendations, United States.

Using a nationally representative panel survey, we examined isolation behaviors among persons in the United States who had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results during January 2021-March 2022. Compared with persons who received provider-administered results, persons with home-based results had 29% (95% CI 5%-47%) lower odds of following isolation recommendations.

Isolation and Quarantine for Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the United States, 2020-2022.

BACKGROUND: Public health programs varied in ability to reach people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and their contacts to encourage separation from others. For both adult case patients with COVID-19 and their contacts, we estimated the impact of contact tracing activities on separation behaviors from January 2020 until March 2022. METHODS: We used a probability-based panel survey of a nationally representative sample to gather data for estimates and comparisons. RESULTS: An estimated 64 255 351 adults reported a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test result; 79.6% isolated for ≥5 days, 60.2% isolated for ≥10 days, and 79.2% self-notified contacts. A total of, 24 057 139 (37.7%) completed a case investigation, and 46.2% of them reported contacts to health officials. More adults who completed a case investigation isolated than those who did not complete a case investigation (≥5 days, 82.6% vs 78.2%, respectively; ≥10 days, 69.8% vs 54.8%; both P < .05). A total of 84 946 636 adults were contacts of a COVID-19 case patient. Of these, 73.1% learned of their exposure directly from a case patient; 49.4% quarantined for ≥5 days, 18.7% quarantined for ≥14 days, and 13.5% completed a contact tracing call. More quarantined among those who completed a contact tracing call than among those who did not complete a tracing call (≥5 days, 61.2% vs 48.5%, respectively; ≥14 days, 25.2% vs 18.0%; both P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Engagement in contact tracing was positively correlated with isolation and quarantine. However, most adults with COVID-19 isolated and self-notified contacts regardless of whether the public health workforce was able to reach them. Identifying and reaching contacts was challenging and limited the ability to promote quarantining, and testing.

Care Plans, Care Teams, and Quality of Life for People with Disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Massachusetts One Care was the first program approved among the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Financial Alignment Demonstrations for dually eligible beneficiaries. The only program focusing on dually eligible beneficiaries ages 21-64, One Care espouses an independent living philosophy for persons with disabilities. Researchers engaged with enrollees to develop new measures of enrollee quality of life and health to understand changes experienced in this new model of care. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether enrollee knowledge of care plans and care teams predicts improvements in enrollee reported quality of life outcomes. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We engaged with people with disabilities to develop and implement a longitudinal survey in One Care in Massachusetts. This analysis presents the self-reported outcomes of a panel of 315 enrollees' experiences with key plan features in Massachusetts One Care enrollees. MAIN MEASURES: Knowledge of care plan, care team, and long-term services and supports (predictors); overall health, improved control, improved quality of health care, and improved hope for the future (outcomes). KEY RESULTS: Enrollee-reported knowledge of a care plan and a care team over 2 years of enrollment in Massachusetts One Care was associated with increased odds of reporting more control over health (OR 2.58, CI 1.33, 5.03), improved health care quality (OR 3, CI 1.27, 7.06), and overall health (OR 2.07, CI 1.05, 4.08). Access to new services or equipment to live independently was associated with increased odds of reporting all four positive outcomes, notably for improved perceptions of hope (OR 2.33, CI 1.56, 5.39), overall health (OR 5.03, CI 2.44, 10.39), and improved quality of care (OR 4.22, CI 1.85, 9.62). CONCLUSION: Engagement of persons with disabilities in care teams and care planning, as well as quality measurement, can improve their experiences of quality of life and health care.

Health plan enrollees with disability informing primary care practices and providers about their quality of care: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In October 2013, Massachusetts initiated the One Care demonstration, which enrolls beneficiaries ages 21 to 64 dually-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Local disability advocates argued that persons with disability should assess their own One Care quality. OBJECTIVES: To test the comparative effectiveness for improving patient-reported health care experiences of two informational interventions in a 12-month period: (1) "YESHealth: Your Experience, Speak up for better health care," in which disability advocates developed brief topical surveys and gathered information from One Care enrollees with significant physical disability or serious mental illness; and (2) the Persons with Disability Quality Survey (PDQ-S), developed collaboratively with persons with disability. METHODS: This cluster randomized controlled trial randomly assigned 27 primary care practices with ≥50 One Care members to three study arms differing by information provided to practice directors and primary care providers (PCPs): (1) quarterly YESHealth reports plus results from baseline administration of PDQ-S to 720 enrollees before YESHealth implementation; (2) PDQ-S results only; and (3) no study information. We administered PDQ-S again one year later and used difference-in-differences analyses of results across the two years to assess intervention outcomes. RESULTS: Disability advocates conducting YESHealth reported substantial difficulties contacting practices and engaging PCPs. With few exceptions, no differences were found across the three study arms in enrollee-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Providing consumer-designed and generated quality information to PCPs had no measurable effect on enrollees' perceptions of One Care quality. Barriers to PCPs engaging with disability advocates could have contributed to YESHealth's failure to improve care.

Collaborative design of a health care experience survey for persons with disability.

BACKGROUND: When assessing results of health care delivery system reforms targeting persons with disability, quality metrics must reflect the experiences and perspectives of this population. OBJECTIVE: For persons with disability and researchers to develop collaboratively a survey that addresses critical quality questions about a new Massachusetts health care program for persons with disability dually-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. METHODS: Persons with significant physical disability or serious mental health diagnoses participated fully in all research activities, including co-directing the study, co-moderating focus groups, performing qualitative analyses, specifying survey topics, cognitive interviewing, and refining survey language. Several sources informed survey development, including key informant interviews, focus groups, and cognitive testing. RESULTS: We interviewed 18 key informants from key stakeholder groups, including disability advocates, health care providers, and governmental agencies. We conducted 12 total English- and Spanish-language focus groups involving 87 participants (38 with physical disability, 49 with mental health diagnoses). Although some details differed, focus group findings were similar across the two disability groups. Analyses by collaborators with disability identified 29 questions for persons with physical disability and 38 for persons with mental health diagnoses. After cognitive testing, the final survey includes questions on topics ranging from independent living principles to health care delivery system concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The Persons with Disabilities Quality Survey (PDQ-S) captures specific quality concerns of Massachusetts residents with physical or mental health disability about an integrated health plan. PDQ-S requires further testing elsewhere to determine its value for quality assessment more generally and to other populations with disability.