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.

Changes in eating behaviours due to crises, disasters and pandemics: a scoping review

Purpose>This literature scoping review aims to investigate if, how and why eating behaviours change after a crisis event such as a natural disaster, financial crisis or pandemic in high-income countries.Design/methodology/approach>The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting "lockdowns” and social distancing measures have changed access to food, the types of food consumed and usual eating behaviours. Early research on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic is compared with existing literature on other high-impact crises in high-income countries around the world, such as Hurricane Katrina and the Global Financial Crisis. A search of four electronic databases in August 2020 of literature from 2000 to 2020 yielded 50 relevant publications that were included in the qualitative thematic analysis.Findings>The analysis found that crisis events made accessing food more difficult and led to increased food insecurity. Home cooking, sharing food and eating together (within households during the pandemic) all increased during and after a crisis. Resources often reduced and needed to be pooled. Crises had a multi-directional impact on dietary patterns, and the motivators for dietary pattern change differ between populations and crises.Originality/value>In conclusion, eating behaviours impacted by crises because of the disruption of food systems, increased food insecurity and changes in daily routines. Community networks were a strong protective factor against adverse outcomes from food insecurity.

Risky business: A mixed methods study of decision-making regarding COVID-19 risk at a public university in the United States.

Introduction: Until vaccines became available in late 2020, our ability to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within countries depended largely on voluntary adherence to mitigation measures. However, individual decision-making regarding acceptable COVID-19 risk is complex. To better understand decision-making regarding COVID-19 risk, we conducted a qualitative substudy within a larger Berkeley COVID-19 Safe Campus Initiative (BCSCI) during the summer of 2020, and completed a mixed-methods analysis of factors influencing decision-making. Materials and methods: We interviewed 20 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 10 who remained negative, and analyzed quantitative survey data from 3,324 BCSCI participants. The BCSCI study enrolled university-affiliated people living in the local area during summer of 2020, collected data on behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19, and conducted SARS-CoV-2 testing at baseline and endline. Results: At baseline, 1362 students (57.5%) and 285 non-students (35.1%) said it had been somewhat or very difficult to comply with COVID-19-related mandates. Most-cited reasons were the need to go out for food/essentials, difficulty of being away from family/friends, and loneliness. Eight interviewees explicitly noted they made decisions partially because of others who may be at high risk. We did not find significant differences between the behaviors of students and non-students. Discussion: Despite prevailing attitudes about irresponsibility of college students during the COVID-19 pandemic, students in our study demonstrated a commitment to making rational choices about risk behavior, not unlike non-students around them. Decision-making was driven by perceived susceptibility to severe disease, need for social interaction, and concern about risk to others. A harm reduction public health approach may be beneficial.

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.

Household Mealtimes During the 2020 COVID-19 Lockdown in Aotearoa New Zealand: The Influence of Household Type and Psychological Distress.

COVID-19 lockdown meant disruptions to daily routines for households in Aotearoa New Zealand. The research presented here investigates how mealtimes changed for people living in New Zealand during the first COVID-19 lockdown in mid-2020 and sought to determine if household composition type and psychological distress impacted the frequency of engaging in several mealtime behaviors. The COVID Kai Survey collected data using an anonymous, online survey and asked questions on sociodemographic characteristics including household composition, frequency of engaging in different mealtime behaviors before and during lockdown, and psychological distress, which was measured using the Kessler 6 screening tool. The findings of this study shows an increase in the perceived importance of mealtimes (n = 807, 26.9% before lockdown, n = 1,154, 38.5% during lockdown) and an increase in the proportion of the survey respondents who stated that they frequently ate meals at the dinner table (n = 1,343, 44.8% before lockdown, n = 1,481, 49.4% during lockdown). There was a decrease, across all household composition types, in the proportion of respondents who ate out frequently at a restaurant or café (n = 878, 29.3% before lockdown, n = 5, 0.2% during lockdown, P < 0.001). The use of meal kits, e-dining, and eating meals in front of screens is also presented and discussed. All results are discussed with reference to Aotearoa New Zealand's stringent lockdown restrictions. Respondents who experienced psychological distress during lockdown were 1.47 times more likely to consider mealtimes an important part of their day and respondents living in households with one adult and at least one child who also experienced psychological distress were 5.95 times more likely to eat dinner at the dinner table than those who did not report psychological distress. Findings of this study further the understanding of the wider societal impact of COVID-19 lockdown on everyday life.

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.

Launching a saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing program on a university campus.

Regular surveillance testing of asymptomatic individuals for SARS-CoV-2 has been center to SARS-CoV-2 outbreak prevention on college and university campuses. Here we describe the voluntary saliva testing program instituted at the University of California, Berkeley during an early period of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020. The program was administered as a research study ahead of clinical implementation, enabling us to launch surveillance testing while continuing to optimize the assay. Results of both the testing protocol itself and the study participants' experience show how the program succeeded in providing routine, robust testing capable of contributing to outbreak prevention within a campus community and offer strategies for encouraging participation and a sense of civic responsibility.

Piloting an integrated SARS-CoV-2 testing and data system for outbreak containment among college students: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colleges and universities across the country are struggling to develop strategies for effective control of COVID-19 transmission as students return to campus. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a prospective cohort study with students living on or near the UC Berkeley campus from June 1st through August 18th, 2020 with the goal of providing guidance for campus reopening in the safest possible manner. In this cohort, we piloted an alternative testing model to provide access to low-barrier, high-touch testing and augment student-driven testing with data-driven adaptive surveillance that targets higher-risk students and triggers testing notifications based on reported symptoms, exposures, or other relevant information. A total of 2,180 students enrolled in the study, 51% of them undergraduates. Overall, 6,247 PCR tests were administered to 2,178 students over the two-month period. Overall test positivity rate was 0.9%; 2.6% of students tested positive. Uptake and acceptability of regular symptom and exposure surveys was high; 98% of students completed at least one survey, and average completion rate was 67% (Median: 74%, IQR: 39%) for daily reporting of symptoms and 68% (Median: 75%, IQR: 40%) for weekly reporting of exposures. Of symptom-triggered tests, 5% were PCR-positive; of exposure-triggered tests, 10% were PCR-positive. The integrated study database augmented traditional contact tracing during an outbreak; 17 potentially exposed students were contacted the following day and sent testing notifications. At study end, 81% of students selected their desire "to contribute to UC Berkeley's response to COVID-19" as a reason for their participation in the Safe Campus study. CONCLUSIONS: Our results illustrate the synergy created by bringing together a student-friendly, harm reduction approach to COVID-19 testing with an integrated data system and analytics. We recommend the use of a confidential, consequence-free, incentive-based daily symptom and exposure reporting system, coupled with low-barrier, easy access, no stigma testing. Testing should be implemented alongside a system that integrates multiple data sources to effectively trigger testing notifications to those at higher risk of infection and encourages students to come in for low-barrier testing when needed.