Geographically skewed recruitment and COVID-19 seroprevalence estimates: a cross-sectional serosurveillance study and mathematical modelling analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Convenience sampling is an imperfect but important tool for seroprevalence studies. For COVID-19, local geographic variation in cases or vaccination can confound studies that rely on the geographically skewed recruitment inherent to convenience sampling. The objectives of this study were: (1) quantifying how geographically skewed recruitment influences SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates obtained via convenience sampling and (2) developing new methods that employ Global Positioning System (GPS)-derived foot traffic data to measure and minimise bias and uncertainty due to geographically skewed recruitment. DESIGN: We used data from a local convenience-sampled seroprevalence study to map the geographic distribution of study participants' reported home locations and compared this to the geographic distribution of reported COVID-19 cases across the study catchment area. Using a numerical simulation, we quantified bias and uncertainty in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates obtained using different geographically skewed recruitment scenarios. We employed GPS-derived foot traffic data to estimate the geographic distribution of participants for different recruitment locations and used this data to identify recruitment locations that minimise bias and uncertainty in resulting seroprevalence estimates. RESULTS: The geographic distribution of participants in convenience-sampled seroprevalence surveys can be strongly skewed towards individuals living near the study recruitment location. Uncertainty in seroprevalence estimates increased when neighbourhoods with higher disease burden or larger populations were undersampled. Failure to account for undersampling or oversampling across neighbourhoods also resulted in biased seroprevalence estimates. GPS-derived foot traffic data correlated with the geographic distribution of serosurveillance study participants. CONCLUSIONS: Local geographic variation in seropositivity is an important concern in SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance studies that rely on geographically skewed recruitment strategies. Using GPS-derived foot traffic data to select recruitment sites and recording participants' home locations can improve study design and interpretation.

COVID-19 Contact Tracing Outcomes in Washington State, August and October 2020.

Introduction: Case investigation and contact tracing are important tools to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, particularly when implemented efficiently. Our objective was to evaluate participation in and timeliness of COVID-19 contact tracing and whether these measures changed over time. Methods: We retrospectively assessed COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing surveillance data from the Washington State centralized program for August 1-31, 2020 and October 1-31, 2020. We combined SARS-CoV-2 testing reports with contact tracing data to compare completeness, reporting of contacts, and program timeliness. Results: For August and October respectively, 4,600 (of 12,521) and 2,166 (of 16,269) individuals with COVID-19 were referred to the state program for case investigation. Investigators called 100% of referred individuals; 65% (August) and 76% (October) were interviewed. Of individuals interviewed, 33% reported contacts in August and 45% in October, with only mild variation by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity. In August, 992 individuals with COVID-19 reported a total of 2,584 contacts (mean, 2.6), and in October, 739 individuals reported 2,218 contacts (mean, 3.0). Among contacts, 86% and 78% participated in interviews for August and October. The median time elapsed from specimen collection to contact interview was 4 days in August and 3 days in October, and from symptom onset to contact interview was 7 days in August and 6 days in October. Conclusions: While contact tracing improved with time, the proportion of individuals disclosing contacts remained below 50% and differed minimally by demographic characteristics. The longest time interval occurred between symptom onset and test result notification. Improving elicitation of contacts and timeliness of contact tracing may further decrease SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Siamit: A Novel Academic-Tribal Health Partnership in Northwest Alaska.

PROBLEM: American Indians and Alaska Natives hold a state-conferred right to health, yet significant health and health care disparities persist. Academic medical centers are resource-rich institutions committed to public service, yet few are engaged in responsive, equitable, and lasting tribal health partnerships to address these challenges. APPROACH: Maniilaq Association, a rural and remote tribal health organization in Northwest Alaska, partnered with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School to address health care needs through physician staffing, training, and quality improvement initiatives. This partnership, called Siamit, falls under tribal governance, focuses on supporting community health leaders, addresses challenges shaped by extreme geographic remoteness, and advances the mission of academic medicine in the context of tribal health priorities. OUTCOMES: Throughout the 2019-2020 academic year, Siamit augmented local physician staffing, mentored health professions trainees, provided continuing medical education courses, implemented quality improvement initiatives, and provided clinical care and operational support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Siamit began with a small budget and limited human resources, demonstrating that relatively small investments in academic-tribal health partnerships can support meaningful and positive outcomes. NEXT STEPS: During the 2020-2021 academic year, the authors plan to expand Siamit's efforts with a broader social medicine curriculum, additional attending staff, more frequent trainee rotations, an increasingly robust mentorship network for Indigenous health professions trainees, and further study of the impact of these efforts. Such partnerships may be replicable in other settings and represent a significant opportunity to advance community health priorities, strengthen tribal health systems, support the next generation of Indigenous health leaders, and carry out the academic medicine mission of teaching, research, and service.

COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in the US, 2020.

Importance: Contact tracing is a multistep process to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Gaps in the process result in missed opportunities to prevent COVID-19. Objective: To quantify proportions of cases and their contacts reached by public health authorities and the amount of time needed to reach them and to compare the risk of a positive COVID-19 test result between contacts and the general public during 4-week assessment periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study took place at 13 health departments and 1 Indian Health Service Unit in 11 states and 1 tribal nation. Participants included all individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and their named contacts. Local COVID-19 surveillance data were used to determine the numbers of persons reported to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were interviewed and named contacts between June and October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: For contacts, the numbers who were identified, notified of their exposure, and agreed to monitoring were calculated. The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculated, as were numbers of named contacts subsequently notified of their exposure and monitored. The prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among named and tested contacts was compared with that jurisdiction's general population during the same 4 weeks. Results: The total number of cases reported was 74 185. Of these, 43 931 (59%) were interviewed, and 24 705 (33%) named any contacts. Among the 74 839 named contacts, 53 314 (71%) were notified of their exposure, and 34 345 (46%) agreed to monitoring. A mean of 0.7 contacts were reached by telephone by public health authorities, and only 0.5 contacts per case were monitored. In general, health departments reporting large case counts during the assessment (≥5000) conducted smaller proportions of case interviews and contact notifications. In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days or less. In 6 of 8 locations with population comparison data, positive test prevalence was higher among named contacts than the general population. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US local COVID-19 surveillance data, testing named contacts was a high-yield activity for case finding. However, this assessment suggests that contact tracing had suboptimal impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely because 2 of 3 cases were either not reached for interview or named no contacts when interviewed. These findings are relevant to decisions regarding the allocation of public health resources among the various prevention strategies and for the prioritization of case investigations and contact tracing efforts.

COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in Central Washington State, June-July 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate participation in COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing in central Washington State between June 15 and July 12, 2020. METHODS: In this retrospective observational evaluation we combined SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antigen test reports from the Washington Disease Reporting System with community case investigation and contact tracing data for 3 health districts (comprising 5 counties) in central Washington State. All 3 health districts have large Hispanic communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19. RESULTS: Investigators attempted to call all referred individuals with COVID-19 (n = 4,987); 71% were interviewed. Of those asked about close contacts (n = 3,572), 68% reported having no close contacts, with similar proportions across ethnicity, sex, and age group. The 968 individuals with COVID-19 who named specific contacts (27% of those asked) reported a total of 2,293 contacts (mean of 2.4 contacts per individual with COVID-19); 85% of listed contacts participated in an interview. CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals with COVID-19 reported having no close contacts. Increasing community engagement and public messaging, as well as understanding and addressing barriers to participation, are crucial for CICT to contribute meaningfully to controlling the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.