Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 incidence and seroconversion among university students and employees: a longitudinal cohort study in California, June-August 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To identify incident SARS-CoV-2 infections and inform effective mitigation strategies in university settings, we piloted an integrated symptom and exposure monitoring and testing system among a cohort of university students and employees. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A public university in California from June to August 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 2180 university students and 738 university employees. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: At baseline and endline, we tested participants for active SARS-CoV-2 infection via quantitative PCR (qPCR) test and collected blood samples for antibody testing. Participants received notifications to complete additional qPCR tests throughout the study if they reported symptoms or exposures in daily surveys or were selected for surveillance testing. Viral whole genome sequencing was performed on positive qPCR samples, and phylogenetic trees were constructed with these genomes and external genomes. RESULTS: Over the study period, 57 students (2.6%) and 3 employees (0.4%) were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection via qPCR test. Phylogenetic analyses revealed that a super-spreader event among undergraduates in congregate housing accounted for at least 48% of cases among study participants but did not spread beyond campus. Test positivity was higher among participants who self-reported symptoms (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 12.7; 95% CI 7.4 to 21.8) or had household exposures (IRR 10.3; 95% CI 4.8 to 22.0) that triggered notifications to test. Most (91%) participants with newly identified antibodies at endline had been diagnosed with incident infection via qPCR test during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that integrated monitoring systems can successfully identify and link at-risk students to SARS-CoV-2 testing. As the study took place before the evolution of highly transmissible variants and widespread availability of vaccines and rapid antigen tests, further research is necessary to adapt and evaluate similar systems in the present context.

Anticipated and Experienced Stigma After Testing Positive for SARS-CoV-2: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Stigma has inhibited public health practitioners' influence during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explore the experienced and anticipated stigma of people affiliated with a large university in the United States, using the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative secondary substudy of 20 people who tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and 10 who tested negative in the summer of 2020, selected from a study of 3,324 university students and employees. FINDINGS: No participants reported anticipated stigmatization prior to testing positive. However, eight of 20 participants recounted stigma marking (being marked by COVID-19 diagnosis or membership in a "high-risk" group) or manifestations of stigma after testing positive, including feelings of guilt or shame, and concerns about being judged as selfish or irresponsible. Three described being denied services or social interactions as a result of having had COVID-19, long after their infectiousness ended. Participants noted that clear public health messaging must be paired with detailed scientific information, rather than leaving people to resort to non-experts to understand the science. DISCUSSION: Public health messaging designed to mitigate spread of SARS-CoV-2 and protect the community may perpetuate stigma and exacerbate inequities. As a result, people may avoid testing or treatment, mistrust public health messaging, or even use risk-increasing behavior as coping mechanisms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Intentional use of language that promotes equity and deters discrimination must be high priority for any COVID-19-related public health messaging. Partnership with community leaders to co-create programs and disseminate messaging is a critical strategy for reducing stigma, especially for historically mistreated groups.

Feasibility and effectiveness of daily temperature screening to detect COVID-19 in a prospective cohort at a large public university.

BACKGROUND: Many persons with active SARS-CoV-2 infection experience mild or no symptoms, presenting barriers to COVID-19 prevention. Regular temperature screening is nonetheless used in some settings, including university campuses, to reduce transmission potential. We evaluated the potential impact of this strategy using a prospective university-affiliated cohort. METHODS: Between June and August 2020, 2912 participants were enrolled and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at least once (median: 3, range: 1-9). Participants reported temperature and symptoms daily via electronic survey using a previously owned or study-provided thermometer. We assessed feasibility and acceptability of daily temperature monitoring, calculated sensitivity and specificity of various fever-based strategies for restricting campus access to reduce transmission, and estimated the association between measured temperature and SARS-CoV-2 test positivity using a longitudinal binomial mixed model. RESULTS: Most participants (70.2%) did not initially have a thermometer for taking their temperature daily. Across 5481 total person months, the average daily completion rate of temperature values was 61.6% (median: 67.6%, IQR: 41.8-86.2%). Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 ranged from 0% (95% CI 0-9.7%) to 40.5% (95% CI 25.6-56.7%) across all strategies for self-report of possible COVID-19 symptoms on day of specimen collection, with corresponding specificity of 99.9% (95% CI 99.8-100%) to 95.3% (95% CI 94.7-95.9%). An increase of 0.1 °F in individual mean body temperature on the same day as specimen collection was associated with 1.11 increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (95% CI 1.06-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first, to our knowledge, that examines the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of daily temperature screening in a prospective cohort during an infectious disease outbreak, and the only study to assess these strategies in a university population. Daily temperature monitoring was feasible and acceptable; however, the majority of potentially infectious individuals were not detected by temperature monitoring, suggesting that temperature screening is insufficient as a primary means of detection to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2.