Racial and socioeconomic inequities in breast cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: analysis of two cohorts of women 50 years + .

BACKGROUND: Routine screening mammography at two-year intervals is widely recommended for the prevention and early detection of breast cancer for women who are 50 years + . Racial and other sociodemographic inequities in routine cancer screening are well-documented, but less is known about how these long-standing inequities were impacted by the disruption in health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, cancer screening and other prevention services were suspended or delayed, and these disruptions may have had to disproportionate impact on some sociodemographic groups. We tested the hypothesis that inequities in screening mammography widened during the pandemic. METHODS: A secondary analysis of patient data from a large state-wide, non-profit healthcare system in Washington State. Analyses were based on two mutually exclusive cohorts of women 50 years or older. The first cohort (n = 18,197) were those women screened in 2017 who would have been due for repeat screening in 2019 (prior to the pandemic's onset). The second cohort (n = 16,391) were women screened in 2018 due in 2020. Explanatory variables were obtained from patient records and included race/ethnicity, age, rural or urban residence, and insurance type. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds of two-year screening for each cohort separately. Combining both cohorts, interaction models were used to test for differences in inequities before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: Significant sociodemographic differences in screening were confirmed during the pandemic, but these were similar to those that existed prior. Based on interaction models, women using Medicaid insurance and of Asian race experienced significantly steeper declines in screening than privately insured and white women (Odds ratios [95% CI] of 0.74 [0.58-0.95] and 0.76 [0.59-0.97] for Medicaid and Asian race, respectively). All other sociodemographic inequities in screening during 2020 were not significantly different from those in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm inequities for screening mammograms during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and provide evidence that these largely reflect the inequities in screening that were present before the pandemic. Policies and interventions to tackle long-standing inequities in use of preventive services may help ensure continuity of care for all, but especially for racial and ethnic minorities and the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

COVID-19 and inequities in colorectal and cervical cancer screening and diagnosis in Washington State.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that cancer screenings dropped dramatically following the onset of the coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this study, we examined differences in rates of cervical and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnosis indicators before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODOLOGY: We used retrospective data from a large healthcare system in Washington State. Targeted screening data included completed cancer screenings for both CRC (colonoscopy) and cervical cancer (Papanicolaou test (Pap test)). We analyzed and compared the rate of uptake of colorectal (colonoscopies) and cervical cancer (Pap) screenings done pre-COVID-19 (April 1, 2019-March 31, 2020) and during the pandemic (April 1, 2020-March 31, 2021). RESULTS: A total of 26,081 (12.7%) patients underwent colonoscopies in the pre-COVID-19 period, compared to only 15,708 (7.4%) patients during the pandemic, showing a 39.8% decrease. A total of 238 patients were referred to medical oncology for CRC compared to only 155 patients during the first year of the pandemic, a reduction of 34%. In the pre-COVID-19 period, 22,395 (10.7%) women were administered PAP tests compared to 20,455 (9.6%) women during the pandemic, for a 7.4% reduction. period 1780 women were referred to colposcopy, compared to only 1680 patients during the pandemic, for a 4.3% reduction. CONCLUSION: Interruption in screening and subsequent delay in diagnosis during the pandemic will likely lead to later-stage diagnoses for both CRC and cervical cancer, which is known to result in decreased survival. IMPACT: The results emphasize the need to prioritize cancer screening, particularly for those at higher risk.

The impact of relaxation of methadone take-home protocols on treatment outcomes in the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) allowed for an increase in methadone take-home doses for the treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) in March 2020. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the SAMSHA exemption on methadone adherence and OUD-related outcomes. METHODS: A convenience sample of 183 clients (58% female) were recruited from a methadone clinic in the fall of 2019 for a cross-sectional survey. Survey data was linked to clinical records, including urine drug testing (UDT) results for methadone and emergency department (ED) visits at the local hospital. Participants were on stable methadone dosing for 9 months prior to and following March 2020. Methadone adherence was assessed by UDTs; OUD-related outcomes were assessed by overdose events and ED visits. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between change in take-home methadone doses and outcomes. RESULTS: Mean take-home doses increased nearly 200% (11.4 doses/30 days pre-COVID-19 vs. 22.3 post-SAMHSA exemption). ED visits dropped from 74 (40.4%) pre-COVID-19 to 56 (30.6%) post-SAMHSA exemption (p = <0.001). No significant changes were observed in either the number of clients experiencing overdose or those who experienced one or more methadone negative UDTs in the post-SAMHSA exemption period. Adjusted models did not show a significant association between changes in take-home doses and associated outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a near-doubling of take-home methadone doses during the COVID-19 exemption period, the increase in take-home doses was not associated with negative treatment outcomes in methadone-adherent clients.

Disparities in Technology and Broadband Internet Access Across Rurality: Implications for Health and Education.

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, interest in using telehealth to increase access to health and mental health care has grown, and school transitions to remote learning have heightened awareness of broadband inequities. The purpose of this study was to examine access and barriers to technology and broadband Internet service ("broadband") among rural and urban youth. Washington State public school districts were surveyed about youth's access to technology (ie, a device adequate for online learning) and broadband availability in spring 2020. Availability of and barriers to broadband (ie, geography, affordability, and smartphone-only connectivity) were assessed across rurality. Among responding districts, 64.2% (n = 172) were rural and 35.8% (n = 96) were urban. Rural districts reported significantly fewer students with access to an Internet-enabled device adequate for online learning (80.0% vs 90.1%, P < .01). Access to reliable broadband varied significantly across geography (P < .01). Compared with their urban peers, rural youth face more challenges in accessing the technology and connectivity needed for remote learning and telehealth. Given that inadequate broadband infrastructure is a critical barrier to the provision of telehealth services and remote learning in rural areas, efforts to improve policies and advance technology must consider geographical disparities to ensure health and education equity.

Changes in methadone take-home dosing before and after COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal exemption allowed stable and less stable patients greater take-home doses of methadone. We assessed the adoption of increased take-home medication during COVID-19 and whether increased take-home doses is associated with clients' characteristics. METHODOLOGY: We completed a pre-post study of adults receiving methadone for OUD from an OTP in Spokane, Washington. Our outcome was the change in the number of take-home methadone doses three months before and three months after the March 2020 take-home medication exemption. Clients' characteristics included age, gender, ethnicity, education level, homelessness, spatial access to the clinic, and methamphetamine use. RESULTS: The study included 194 clients in treatment for a median of three years. All study participants experienced an average increase in take-home medication of 41.4 in the three-month period after the COVID-19 exemption. In the final adjusted models, clients who reported using methamphetamine in the last 30 days experienced a significantly larger increase in take-home dosage (55.6 days) compare to clients who did not use methamphetamine (p ≤0.001). Most of the clients who reported using methamphetamine were also likely to be homeless. All other variables were not associated with a change in take-home doses. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the Spokane OTP quickly expanded take-home medication dosing in response to the COVID-19 exemption and broadly expanded take-home dosing among established clients. Clients with concurrent methamphetamine use were allowed fewer take-home doses prior to COVID-19, but after the exemption the clinic provided them the same number of take-home doses as clients who had not used methamphetamine.