School-Based Interventions to Increase Student COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage in Public School Populations with Low Coverage - Seattle, Washington, December 2021-June 2022.

COVID-19 can lead to severe outcomes in children (1). Vaccination decreases risk for COVID-19 illness, severe disease, and death (2). On December 13, 2020, CDC recommended COVID-19 vaccination for persons aged ≥16 years, with expansion on May 12, 2021, to children and adolescents (children) aged 12-15 years, and on November 2, 2021, to children aged 5-11 years (3). As of March 8, 2023, COVID-19 vaccination coverage among school-aged children remained low nationwide, with 61.7% of children aged 12-17 years and approximately one third (32.7%) of those aged 5-11 years having completed the primary series (3). Intention to receive COVID-19 vaccine and vaccination coverage vary by demographic characteristics, including race and ethnicity and socioeconomic status (4-6). Seattle Public Schools (SPS) implemented a program to increase COVID-19 vaccination coverage during the 2021-22 school year, focusing on children aged 5-11 years during November 2021-June 2022, with an added focus on populations with low vaccine coverage during January 2022-June 2022.† The program included strategic messaging, school-located vaccination clinics, and school-led community engagement. Vaccination data from the Washington State Immunization Information System (WAIIS) were analyzed to examine disparities in COVID-19 vaccination by demographic and school characteristics and trends over time. In December 2021, 56.5% of all SPS students, 33.7% of children aged 5-11 years, and 81.3% of children aged 12-18 years had completed a COVID-19 primary vaccination series. By June 2022, overall series completion had increased to 80.3% and was 74.0% and 86.6% among children aged 5-11 years and 12-18 years, respectively. School-led vaccination programs can leverage community partnerships and relationships with families to improve COVID-19 vaccine access and coverage.

Barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake among resource-limited adults diagnosed with chronic illness.

Background: Despite the use of interventions (e.g., monetary incentives, educational campaigns, on-site workplace vaccination) to increase COVID-19 vaccination, differences in uptake persist by poverty level, insurance status, geography, race, and ethnicity, suggesting that these interventions may not be adequately addressing the barriers faced by these populations. Among a sample of resource-limited individuals with chronic illnesses, we (1) described the prevalence of different types of barriers to the COVID-19 vaccination and (2) identified associations between patients' sociodemographic characteristics and barriers to vaccination. Methods: We surveyed a national sample of patients with chronic illness and demonstrated healthcare affordability and/or access challenges about barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in July 2021. We categorized participant responses into cost, transportation, informational, and attitudinal barrier domains and assessed the prevalence of each domain, both overall and by self-reported vaccination status. Using logistic regression models, we examined unadjusted and adjusted associations between respondent characteristics (sociodemographic, geographic, and healthcare access) and self-reported barriers to vaccination. Results: Of 1,342 respondents in the analytic sample, 20% (264/1,342) reported informational barriers and 9% (126/1,342) reported attitudinal barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Transportation and cost barriers were reported much less commonly, by only 1.1% (15/1,342) and 0.7% (10/1,342) of the sample, respectively. Controlling for all other characteristics, respondents with either a specialist as their usual source of care or no usual source of care had an 8.4 (95% CI: 1.7-15.1) and 18.1 (95% CI: 4.3-32.0) percentage point higher predicted probability, respectively, of reporting informational barriers to care. Compared to females, males had an 8.4% point (95% CI: 5.5-11.4) lower predicted probability of reporting attitudinal barriers. Only attitudinal barriers were associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Conclusion: Among a sample of adults with chronic illnesses who had received financial assistance and case management services from a national non-profit, informational and attitudinal barriers were more commonly reported than logistical or structural access barriers (i.e., transportation and cost barriers). Interventions should target attitudinal barriers among patients with chronic illness, who may have particular concerns about the interaction of the vaccine with ongoing medical care. Additionally, interventions targeting informational barriers are particularly needed among individuals without a usual source of care.

High-Risk Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Active Scanning Proton Beam Radiation Therapy and Immunotherapy.

Purpose: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a deadly malignancy that is frequently diagnosed in patients with significant medical comorbidities. When delivering local and regional therapy, an exceedingly narrow therapeutic window is encountered, which often precludes patients from receiving aggressive curative therapy. Radiation therapy advances including particle therapy have been employed in an effort to expand this therapeutic window. Here we report outcomes with the use of proton therapy with curative intent and immunotherapy to treat patients diagnosed with high-risk NSCLC. Methods and Materials: Patients were determined to be high risk if they had severe underlying cardiopulmonary dysfunction, history of prior thoracic radiation therapy, and/or large volume or unfavorable location of disease (eg, bilateral hilar involvement, supraclavicular involvement). As such, patients were determined to be ineligible for conventional x-ray-based radiation therapy and were treated with pencil beam scanning proton beam therapy (PBS-PBT). Patients who demonstrated excess respiratory motion (ie, greater than 1 cm in any dimension noted on the 4-dimensional computed tomography simulation scan) were deemed to be ineligible for PBT. Toxicity was reported using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5.0. Overall survival and progression-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 29 patients with high-risk NSCLC diagnoses were treated with PBS-PBT. The majority (55%) of patients were defined as high risk due to severe cardiopulmonary dysfunction. Most commonly, patients were treated definitively to a total dose of 6000 cGy (relative biological effectiveness) in 30 fractions with concurrent chemotherapy. Overall, there were a total of 6 acute grade 3 toxicities observed in our cohort. Acute high-grade toxicities included esophagitis (n = 4, 14%), dyspnea (n = 1, 3.5%), and cough (n = 1, 3.5%). No patients developed grade 4 or higher toxicity. The majority of patients went on to receive immunotherapy, and high-grade pneumonitis was rare. Two-year progression-free and overall survival was estimated to be 51% and 67%, respectively. COVID-19 was confirmed or suspected to be responsible for 2 patient deaths during the follow-up period. Conclusions: Radical PBS-PBT treatment delivered in a cohort of patients with high-risk lung cancer with immunotherapy is feasible with careful multidisciplinary evaluation and rigorous follow-up.

Health insurance and financial hardship in cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Uninsured or underinsured individuals with cancer are likely to experience financial hardship, including forgoing healthcare or non-healthcare needs such as food, housing, or utilities. This study evaluates the association between health insurance coverage and financial hardship among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-sectional analysis used Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) survey data from May to July 2020. Cancer survivors who previously received case management or financial aid from PAF self-reported challenges paying for healthcare and non-healthcare needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Associations between insurance coverage and payment challenges were estimated using Poisson regression with robust standard errors, which allowed for estimation of adjusted relative risks (aRR). Of 1,437 respondents, 74% had annual household incomes <$48,000. Most respondents were enrolled in Medicare (48%), 22% in employer-sponsored insurance, 13% in Medicaid, 6% in an Affordable Care Act (ACA) plan, and 3% were uninsured. Approximately 31% of respondents reported trouble paying for healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents who were uninsured (aRR 2.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.83-3.64), enrolled in an ACA plan (aRR 1.86, 95% CI 1.28-2.72), employer-sponsored insurance (aRR 1.70, 95% CI 1.23-2.34), or Medicare (aRR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09-2.03) had higher risk of trouble paying for healthcare compared to Medicaid enrollees. Challenges paying for non-healthcare needs were reported by 57% of respondents, with 40% reporting trouble paying for food, 31% housing, 28% transportation, and 20% internet. In adjusted models, Medicare and employer-sponsored insurance enrollees were less likely to have difficulties paying for non-healthcare needs compared to Medicaid beneficiaries. Despite 97% of our cancer survivor sample being insured, 31% and 57% reported trouble paying for healthcare and non-healthcare needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively. Greater attention to both medical and non-medical financial burden is needed given the economic pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Examining the association among fear of COVID-19, psychological distress, and delays in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Given the high risk of COVID-19 mortality, patients with cancer may be vulnerable to fear of COVID-19, adverse psychological outcomes, and health care delays. METHODS: This longitudinal study surveyed the pandemic's impact on patients with cancer (N= 1529) receiving Patient Advocate Foundation services during early and later pandemic. Generalized estimating equation with repeated measures was conducted to assess the effect of COVID-19 on psychological distress. Logistic regression with repeated measures was used to assess the effect of COVID-19 on any delays in accessing health care (e.g., specialty care doctors, laboratory, or diagnostic testing, etc.). RESULTS: Among 1199 respondents, 94% considered themselves high risk for COVID-19. Respondents with more fear of COVID-19 had a higher mean psychological distress score (10.21; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 9.38-11.03) compared to respondents with less fear (7.55; 95% CI 6.75-8.36). Additionally, 47% reported delaying care. Respondents with more fear of COVID-19 had higher percentages of delayed care than those with less (56; 95% CI 39%-72% vs. 44%; 95% CI 28%-61%). These relationships persisted throughout the pandemic. For respondents with a COVID-19 diagnosis in their household (n = 116), distress scores were similar despite higher delays in care (58% vs. 27%) than those without COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of COVID-19 is linked to psychological distress and delays in care among patients with cancer. Furthermore, those who are personally impacted see exacerbated cancer care delays. Timely psychosocial support and health care coordination are critical to meet increased care needs of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.