Barriers to and solutions for representative inclusion across the lifespan and in life course research: The need for structural competency highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Exclusion of special populations (older adults; pregnant women, children, and adolescents; individuals of lower socioeconomic status and/or who live in rural communities; people from racial and ethnic minority groups; individuals from sexual or gender minority groups; and individuals with disabilities) in research is a pervasive problem, despite efforts and policy changes by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations. These populations are adversely impacted by social determinants of health (SDOH) that reduce access and ability to participate in biomedical research. In March 2020, the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute hosted the "Lifespan and Life Course Research: integrating strategies" "Un-Meeting" to discuss barriers and solutions to underrepresentation of special populations in biomedical research. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how exclusion of representative populations in research can increase health inequities. We applied findings of this meeting to perform a literature review of barriers and solutions to recruitment and retention of representative populations in research and to discuss how findings are important to research conducted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We highlight the role of SDOH, review barriers and solutions to underrepresentation, and discuss the importance of a structural competency framework to improve research participation and retention among special populations.

Incidence of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Older Adults Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Little is known about the burden and outcomes of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-positive acute respiratory infection (ARI) in community-dwelling older adults. Objective: To assess the incidence of RSV-positive ARI before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess outcomes for RSV-positive ARI in older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a community-based cohort study of adults residing in southeast Minnesota that followed up with 2325 adults aged 50 years or older for 2 RSV seasons (2019-2021) to assess the incidence of RSV-positive ARI. The study assessed outcomes at 2 to 4 weeks, 6 to 7 months, and 12 to 13 months after RSV-positive ARI. Exposure: RSV-positive and -negative ARI. Main Outcomes and Measures: RSV status was the main study outcome. Incidence and attack rates of RSV-positive ARI were calculated during each RSV season, including before (October 2019 to April 2020) and during (October 2020 to April 2021) COVID-19 pandemic, and further calculated during non-RSV season (May to September 2021) for assessing impact of COVID-19. The self-reported quality of life (QOL) by Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36) and physical functional measures (eg, 6-minute walk and spirometry) at each time point was assessed. Results: In this study of 2325 participants, the median (range) age of study participants was 67 (50-98) years, 1380 (59%) were female, and 2240 (96%) were non-Hispanic White individuals. The prepandemic incidence rate of RSV-positive ARI was 48.6 (95% CI, 36.9-62.9) per 1000 person-years with a 2.50% (95% CI, 1.90%-3.21%) attack rate. No RSV-positive ARI case was identified during the COVID-19 pandemic RSV season. Incidence of 10.2 (95% CI, 4.1-21.1) per 1000 person-years and attack rate of 0.42%; (95% CI, 0.17%-0.86%) were observed during the summer of 2021. Based on prepandemic RSV season results, participants with RSV-positive ARI (vs matched RSV-negative ARI) reported significantly lower QOL adjusted mean difference (limitations due to physical health, -16.7 [95% CI, -31.8 to -1.8]; fatigue, -8.4 [95% CI, -14.3 to -2.4]; and difficulty in social functioning, -11.9 [95% CI, -19.8 to -4.0] within 2 to 4 weeks after RSV-positive ARI [ie, short-term outcome]). Compared with participants with RSV-negative ARI, those with RSV-positive ARI also had lower QOL (fatigue: -4.0 [95% CI, -8.5 to -1.3]; difficulty in social functioning, -5.8 [95% CI, -10.3 to -1.3]; and limitation due to emotional problem, -7.0 [95% CI, -12.7 to -1.3] at 6 to 7 months after RSV-positive ARI [intermediate-term outcome]; fatigue, -4.4 [95% CI, -7.3 to -1.5]; difficulty in social functioning, -5.2 [95% CI, -8.7 to -1.7] and limitation due to emotional problem, -5.7 [95% CI, -10.7 to -0.6] at 12-13 months after RSV-positive ARI [ie, long-term outcomes]) independent of age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and high-risk comorbidities. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the burden of RSV-positive ARI in older adults during the pre-COVID-19 period was substantial. After a reduction of RSV-positive ARI incidence from October 2020 to April 2021, RSV-positive ARI re-emerged during the summer of 2021. RSV-positive ARI was associated with significant long-term lower QOL beyond the short-term lower QOL in older adults.

Rates of Asymptomatic COVID-19 Infection and Associated Factors in Olmsted County, Minnesota, in the Prevaccination Era.

Objective: To estimate rates and identify factors associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 in the population of Olmsted County during the prevaccination era. Patients and Methods: We screened first responders (n=191) and Olmsted County employees (n=564) for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 from November 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 to estimate seroprevalence and asymptomatic infection. Second, we retrieved all polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses in Olmsted County from March 2020 through January 2021, abstracted symptom information, estimated rates of asymptomatic infection and examined related factors. Results: Twenty (10.5%; 95% CI, 6.9%-15.6%) first responders and 38 (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-9.1%) county employees had positive antibodies; an additional 5 (2.6%) and 10 (1.8%) had prior positive PCR tests per self-report or medical record, but no antibodies detected. Of persons with symptom information, 4 of 20 (20%; 95% CI, 3.0%-37.0%) first responders and 10 of 39 (26%; 95% CI, 12.6%-40.0%) county employees were asymptomatic. Of 6020 positive PCR tests in Olmsted County with symptom information between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, 6% (n=385; 95% CI, 5.8%-7.1%) were asymptomatic. Factors associated with asymptomatic disease included age (0-18 years [odds ratio {OR}, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.1] and >65 years [OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.0-2.0] compared with ages 19-44 years), body mass index (overweight [OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77] or obese [OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.57-0.62] compared with normal or underweight) and tests after November 20, 2020 ([OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13-1.71] compared with prior dates). Conclusion: Asymptomatic rates in Olmsted County before COVID-19 vaccine rollout ranged from 6% to 25%, and younger age, normal weight, and later tests dates were associated with asymptomatic infection.

Rates of Asymptomatic COVID-19 Infection and Associated Factors in Olmsted County, MN in the Pre-Vaccination Era

Objective To estimate rates and identify factors associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 in the population of Olmsted County during the pre-vaccination era. Patients and Methods We screened first responders (N=191) and Olmsted County employees (N=564) for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 from November 2020 to February 2021 to estimate seroprevalence and asymptomatic infection. Second, we retrieved all PCR confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses in Olmsted County from March 2020 through January 2021, ed symptom information, estimated rates of asymptomatic infection and examined related factors. Results Twenty (10.5%;95%CI: 6.9%-15.6%) first responders and thirty-eight (6.7%;95% CI: 5.0%-9.1%) county employees had positive antibodies;an additional 5 (2.6%) and 10 (1.8%) had prior positive PCR tests per self-report or medical record, but no antibodies detected. Of persons with symptom information, 4/20, (20%, 95% CI: 3.0%-37.0%) of first responders and 10/39 (26%, 95% CI: 12.6%-40.0%) county employees, were asymptomatic. Of 6,020 positive PCR tests in Olmsted County with symptom information between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, 6% (n=385;95% CI: 5.8%-7.1%) were asymptomatic. Factors associated with asymptomatic disease included age [0-18 years (OR=2.3, 95% CI: 1.7-3.1) and 65+ years (OR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.0-2.0) compared to ages 19-44 years], body-mass-index [overweight OR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.44-0.77) or obese (OR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.57-0.62) compared to normal or underweight] and tests after November 20, 2020 [(OR=1.35;95% CI: 1.13-1.71) compared to prior dates]. Conclusion Asymptomatic rates in Olmsted County prior to vaccine rollout ranged from 6-25%, and younger age, normal weight, and later tests dates were associated with asymptomatic infection.

Role of geographic risk factors and social determinants of health in COVID-19 epidemiology: Longitudinal geospatial analysis in a midwest rural region

Background:Studies examining the role of geographic factors in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) epidemiology among rural populations are lacking.Methods:Our study is a population-based longitudinal study based on rural residents in four southeast Minnesota counties from March through October 2020. We used a kernel density estimation approach to identify hotspots for COVID-19 cases. Temporal trends of cases and testing were examined by generating a series of hotspot maps during the study period. Household/individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) was measured using the HOUSES index and examined for association between identified hotspots and SES.Results:During the study period, 24,243 of 90,975 residents (26.6%) were tested for COVID-19 at least once;1498 (6.2%) of these tested positive. Compared to other rural residents, hotspot residents were overall younger (median age: 40.5 vs 43.2), more likely to be minorities (10.7% vs 9.7%), and of higher SES (lowest HOUSES [SES] quadrant: 14.6% vs 18.7%). Hotspots accounted for 30.1% of cases (14.5% of population) for rural cities and 60.8% of cases (27.1% of population) for townships. Lower SES and minority households were primarily affected early in the pandemic and higher SES and non-minority households affected later.Conclusion:In rural areas of these four counties in Minnesota, geographic factors (hotspots) play a significant role in the overall burden of COVID-19 with associated racial/ethnic and SES disparities, of which pattern differed by the timing of the pandemic (earlier in pandemic vs later). The study results could more precisely guide community outreach efforts (e.g., public health education, testing/tracing, and vaccine roll out) to those residing in hotspots.

Factors associated with willingness to wear a mask to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in a Midwestern Community.

OBJECTIVE: To identify motivators and barriers to wearing a mask to prevent COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: An anonymous, online survey of adults from Southeastern Minnesota conducted August 2020. We assessed willingness to wear a mask and its associations with socio-demographics, COVID-19-related factors and prevention behaviors using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 7,786 respondents (78% women, 51% rural), 9% reported 'not at all willing', 27% 'willing', and 64% 'very willing' to wear a mask. Factors independently associated with willingness to wear a mask were: urban residence (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.05-1.44, p = 0.009); college degree or greater (OR 1.42, CI 1.05-1.93, p = 0.025); age (18-29 years OR 1.29, CI 01.02-1.64, p = 0.038; 30-39 OR = 1.37, CI 1.12-1.69, p = 0.003; 60-69 OR = 1.44, CI 1.09-1.91, p = 0.011; 70-89 OR 2.09, CI 1.32-3.37, p = 0.002; 40-49 reference group); and (all p < 0.001) democratic party affiliation (OR 1.79, CI 1.40-2.29), correct COVID-19 knowledge (OR 1.50, CI 1.28-1.75), 5 + COVID-19 prevention behaviors (OR 2.74, CI 1.98-3.81), positive perceived impacts for wearing a mask (OR 1.55, 1.52-1.59), perceived COVID-19 severity (OR 2.1, CI 1.44-3.1), and greater stress (OR 1.03, CI 1.02-1.04), and trust in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (OR 1.78, CI 1.45 -2.19). CONCLUSION: Results from this sample of SEMN residents suggest interventions to enhance COVID-19 knowledge, positive expectations for mask wearing, and trust in the CDC are warranted. Research is needed to understand cultural and other barriers and facilitators among sub-populations, e.g., rural residents less willing to wear a mask.

Role of Geographic Risk Factors in COVID-19 Epidemiology: Longitudinal Geospatial Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a geospatial and temporal trend analysis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a Midwest community to identify and characterize hot spots for COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based longitudinal surveillance assessing the semimonthly geospatial trends of the prevalence of test confirmed COVID-19 cases in Olmsted County, Minnesota, from March 11, 2020, through October 31, 2020. As urban areas accounted for 84% of the population and 86% of all COVID-19 cases in Olmsted County, MN, we determined hot spots for COVID-19 in urban areas (Rochester and other small cities) of Olmsted County, MN, during the study period by using kernel density analysis with a half-mile bandwidth. RESULTS: As of October 31, 2020, a total of 37,141 individuals (30%) were tested at least once, of whom 2433 (7%) tested positive. Testing rates among race groups were similar: 29% (black), 30% (Hispanic), 25% (Asian), and 31% (white). Ten urban hot spots accounted for 590 cases at 220 addresses (2.68 cases per address) as compared with 1843 cases at 1292 addresses in areas outside hot spots (1.43 cases per address). Overall, 12% of the population residing in hot spots accounted for 24% of all COVID-19 cases. Hot spots were concentrated in neighborhoods with low-income apartments and mobile home communities. People living in hot spots tended to be minorities and from a lower socioeconomic background. CONCLUSION: Geographic and residential risk factors might considerably account for the overall burden of COVID-19 and its associated racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities. Results could geospatially guide community outreach efforts (eg, testing/tracing and vaccine rollout) for populations at risk for COVID-19.

Creating a pediatric advisory board for engaging youth in pediatric health research: A case study.

Youth are an understudied population requiring additional safeguards when participating in research. Their input is necessary to facilitate participation and interest in studies. To address this, Mayo Clinic established one of the first pediatric advisory boards (PAB) comprised of 18 diverse youth aged 11-17. The PAB members participated in quarterly meetings (in person and then by video conference with the advent of COVID-19) where they provided feedback to researchers on recruitment strategies, study materials, and procedures. The PAB meetings fostered bidirectional conversations with researchers on several health research topics, including mental health. Youth advisory boards can promote engagement in pediatric research.

Adherence to Public Health Measures Mitigates the Risk of COVID-19 Infection in Older Adults: A Community-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the reopening period in older adults, given that little is known about the prevalence of COVID-19 after the stay-at-home order was lifted in the United States, nor the actual effects of adherence to recommended public health measures (RPHM) on the risk of COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study nested in a parent prospective cohort study, which followed a population-based sample of 2325 adults 50 years and older residing in southeast Minnesota to assess the incidence of viral infections. Participants were instructed to self-collect both nasal and oropharyngeal swabs, which were tested by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-based severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay between May 8, 2020, and June, 30, 2020. We assessed the prevalence of COVID-19 cases and characteristics of study subjects. RESULTS: A total of 1505 eligible subjects participated in the study whose mean age was 68 years, with 885 (59%) women, 32 (2%) racial/ethnic minorities, and 906 (60%) with high-risk conditions for influenza. The prevalence of other Coronaviridae (human coronavirus [HCoV]-229E, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-OC43) during the 2019 to 2020 flu season was 109 (7%), and none tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Almost all participants reported adhering to the RPHM (1,488 [99%] for social distancing, 1,438 [96%] for wearing mask in a public space, 1,476 [98%] for hand hygiene, and 1,441 (96%) for staying home mostly). Eighty-six percent of participants resided in a single-family home. CONCLUSION: We did not identify SARS-COV-2 infection in our study cohort. The combination of participants' behavior in following the RPHM and their living environment may considerably mitigate the risk of COVID-19.