Relationship between COVID-19 cases and vaccination rates in New York State counties.

Context: The presence of new viral variants, in combination with the relaxation of social distancing and other preventative measures, has led to a spike in COVID-19 cases in the United States. The development of COVID-19 vaccinations may reduce the impact of these viral variants on case rates in the population. Objective: To determine the impact of COVID-19 vaccination rates on cases/100k population in each New York State (NYS) county. Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis of COVID-19 cases/100k population per NYS county, frozen at a single snapshot in time. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were conducted to determine vaccination rates across 62 NYS counties, and linear regression was used to examine the effect of vaccination rates on cases/100k, controlling for size of county population. Dataset & Setting: Vaccination rates per county shared by the NYS Department of Health using data reported to the NYS Immunization Information System and the New York City Citywide Immunization Registry. COVID-19 case rates per county available through the John Hopkins University website. Population: NYS residents across 62 counties on March 31st, 2021. Outcome Measures: COVID-19 vaccination rates across counties at a single point in time were compared with cases/100k population. Results: Percentages with 1 dose and with 2 doses are highly correlated (r=.935, p<.001) with one another, and county population size was strongly correlated with cases per 100k (r=.715, p<.001). Both the 1 dose and 2 dose rates were negatively correlated with cases per 100k population, although not significantly. However, the two-dose vaccination rate was a significant negative predictor of cases per 100k population in NYS Counties (ß= -.866, p=.031), with each percentage point of completed vaccination nearly equating to one case less in the daily count, when controlling for county population size (ß =2.732, p<.001). Conclusion: While COVID-19 variants may impact vaccine effectiveness, current vaccination efforts are helping forestall some cases in NYS. Widespread vaccination is still an important goal. Primary care providers, public officials, and public health scientists should continue to urgently promote and support vaccination efforts.

Rapid Antigen Test Sensitivity for Asymptomatic COVID-19 Screening.

Introduction: Operating in-person instruction, residential living, and other activities at institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the context of the pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) have posed a multitude of challenges. Identification of asymptomatic cases at IHEs is crucial, as a large reservoir of virus can potentially develop among students. Unfortunately, despite the advantages, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have variously been shown to perform poorly when used with asymptomatic individuals. Methods: In order to address the appropriateness of RAT use in screening asymptomatic populations like those at IHEs, we conducted a rapid review of published evaluations of RATs available in the United States, where sensitivity and specificity were reported specifically from asymptomatic populations. We extracted sensitivity and specificity for asymptomatic populations reported in each article, along with location and important notes. The data are presented narratively. Results: A total of 11 articles were included for evaluation and presentation, representing tests from four manufacturers. Sensitivity ranged from 35.8% to a high of about 71%, with caveats to the higher number about exposure. Both the low and high sensitivity rates were observed in Abbott BinaxNOW RATs. Due to heterogeneity and publishing differences, a meta-analysis was not feasible, but RAT tests in asymptomatic populations tended to identify roughly half of those identified as infected via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Specificity ranged from 97.8% to 100%. Conclusion: The results of this rapid review indicate serious issues in misidentifying asymptomatic individuals as COVID-19 negative, when in fact they are infected and carrying the SARS-Cov2 virus.

Diabetes Education and Support Tele-Visit Needs Differ in Duration, Content, and Satisfaction in Older Versus Younger Adults.

Background: Diabetes education and support are critical components of diabetes care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when telemedicine took the place of in-person visits, remote Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist (CDCES) services were offered to address diabetes education and support. Specific needs for older adults, including the time required to provide education and support remotely, have not been previously reported. Methods: Adults with diabetes (primarily insulin-requiring) were referred to remote CDCESs. Utilization was individualized based on patient needs and preferences. Topics discussed, patient satisfaction, and time spent in each tele-visit were evaluated by diabetes type, age, sex, insurance type, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), pump, and continuous glucose monitor (CGM) usage. t-Tests, one-way analysis of variance, and Pearson correlations were employed as appropriate. Results: Adults (n = 982; mean age 48.4 years, 41.0% age ≥55 years) with type 1 diabetes (n = 846) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 136, 86.0% insulin-treated), 50.8% female; 19.0% Medicaid, 29.1% Medicare, 48.9% private insurance; mean HbA1c 8.4% (standard deviation 1.9); and 46.6% pump and 64.5% CGM users had 2203 tele-visits with remote CDCESs over 5 months. Of those referred, 272 (21.7%) could not be reached or did not receive education/support. Older age (≥55 years), compared with 36-54 year olds and 18-35 year olds, respectively, was associated with more tele-visits (mean 2.6 vs. 2.2 and 1.8) and more time/tele-visits (mean 20.4 min vs. 16.5 min and 14.8 min; p < 0.001) as was coverage with Medicare (mean 2.8 visits) versus private insurance (mean 2.0 visits; p < 0.001) and lower participant satisfaction. The total mean time spent with remote CDCESs was 53.1, 37.4, and 26.2 min for participants aged ≥55, 36-54, and 18-35 years, respectively. During remote tele-visits, the most frequently discussed topics per participant were CGM and insulin pump use (73.4% and 49.7%). After adjustment for sex and diabetes type, older age was associated with lack of access to a computer, tablet, smartphone, or internet (p < 0.001), and need for more education related to CGM (p < 0.001), medications (p = 0.015), hypoglycemia (p = 0.044), and hyperglycemia (p = 0.048). Discussion: Most remote CDCES tele-visits were successfully completed. Older adults/those with Medicare required more time to fulfill educational needs. Although 85.7% of individual sessions lasted <30 min, which does not meet current Medicare requirements for reimbursement, multiple visits were common with a total time of >50 min for most older participants. This suggests that new reimbursement models are needed. Education/support needs of insulin-treated older adults should be a focus of future studies.

Satisfaction and Concerns with Telemedicine Endocrine Care of Patients with Cystic Fibrosis.

Introduction: Patients with chronic health conditions are at high risk for severe COVID-19 infections, making telemedicine for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) particularly relevant. There are limited data regarding provider perspectives on caring for patients with CF using telemedicine, particularly for those with CFRD. Methods: Surveys were administered to patients with CF (with and without CFRD) and to adult and pediatric endocrinologists who specialize in CF. Data were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture; t-tests were used to compare total mean scores of Likert scale questions. The differences in responses were performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test. Variables were assessed for normality and we performed the Mann-Whitney test. No change in the results of the hypothesis test was found. All results were analyzed using SPSS version 27. Results: Eighteen patients (n = 9 CFRD) and 21 providers responded. Both groups reported high satisfaction with telemedicine overall (83.3%; 71.4%), convenience (94.4%; 85.7%), and adequate time during the visit (94.4%; 76.2%), and the majority would recommend telemedicine to others (94.4%; 95.2%). Lack of in-person examination components was of more concern to providers than patients: height/weight (p < 0.001), vitals (p < 0.001), and glycated hemoglobin (p < 0.001). There was no difference in provider perception in treatment of CFRD compared to type 1 diabetes (T1D). Common themes of open-ended questions included ease in attending telemedicine appointments (patients) and decrease in "no shows" (providers). Discussion: Patient and provider satisfaction with telemedicine was high. The lack of typical components of face-to-face visits was more concerning for providers when compared to patients. Provider concern regarding lack of components specific to diabetes was similar regarding CFRD and T1D.

Training Family Medicine Residents to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey of Program Directors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Public health training became particularly important for family medicine (FM) residency training programs amid the COVID-19 pandemic; the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME IV.C.19) requires a structured curriculum in which residents address population health. Our primary goal was to understand if, and to what extent, public health interventions trainings were incorporated into FM residency training programs amid the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized programs with more resources (eg, university affiliates) would be better able to incorporate the training compared to those without such resources (ie, nonuniversity affiliates). METHODS: In 2021, we incorporated items addressing COVID-19 public health training competencies into the 2021 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance national survey of FM residency program directors. The items addressed the type of training provided, mode of delivery, barriers to providing training, perceived importance of training, and support in delivering training. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 46.4% (n=287/619). All programs offered at least some training to residents. There were no statistically significant differences in training intensity between university and nonuniversity affiliates. The length of time an FM residency director spent in their position was positively associated with training intensity (r=0.1430, P=.0252). The biggest barrier to providing the trainings was the need to devote time to other curriculum requirements. CONCLUSIONS: FM residency programs were able to provide some public health interventions training during the pandemic. With increased support and resources, FM resident training curricula may better prepare FM residents now in anticipation of a future pandemic.

Healthcare Personnel (HCP) Attitudes About Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination After Emergency Use Authorization.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination intent among healthcare personnel (HCP) before emergency use authorization. We found widespread hesitancy and a substantial proportion of HCP did not intend to vaccinate. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCP, including clinical and nonclinical staff, researchers, and trainees between 21 February and 19 March 2021. The survey evaluated vaccine attitudes, beliefs, intent, and acceptance. RESULTS: Overall, 3981 (87.7%) of respondents had already received a COVID-19 vaccine or planned to get vaccinated. There were significant differences in vaccine acceptance by gender, age, race, and hospital role. Males (93.7%) were more likely than females (89.8%) to report vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Mean age was higher among those reporting vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Physicians and scientists showed the highest acceptance rate (97.3%), whereas staff in ancillary services showed the lowest acceptance rate (79.9%). Unvaccinated respondents were more likely to be females, to have refused vaccines in the past due to reasons other than illness or allergy, to care for COVID-19 patients, or to rely on themselves when making vaccination decision. Vaccine acceptance was more than twice previous intent among Black respondents, an increase from 30.8% to 73.8%, and across all hospital roles with all > 80% vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of HCP were vaccinated, much higher than reporting intent before vaccine was available. However, many HCP-particularly ancillary services-are still hesitant. Feasible and effective interventions to address the hesitant, including individually-tailored education strategies are needed, or vaccine can be mandated.

Relationship Between COVID-19 Cases and Vaccination Rates in New York State Counties.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been developed with unprecedented speed. The phased introduction of vaccines may be serving to offset the impact of new viral variants and policy relaxation. In order to assess the impact of vaccination, we examined a snapshot of vaccination rates across counties in a single state, at a single time point, comparing them with population-adjusted case counts. METHODS: We calculated descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for vaccination rates and cases across counties in New York State (NYS). We conducted a linear regression using cases/100K population per NYS county, frozen at a single snapshot in time, as the outcome variable, predicted by percentage of each county's population (completed series/two doses), controlling for county population. RESULTS: Percentages with one dose and with two doses were highly correlated (r=.935, P<.001) with one another. Both the one dose and two dose z rates were negatively correlated with cases per 100K population (not significant). Population size was strongly correlated with cases per 100K (r=.715, P<.001). The two-dose vaccination rate was a significant negative predictor of cases per 100K population in NYS counties (ß= -.866, P=.031), with each percentage point of completed vaccination nearly equating to one case less in the daily count when controlling for county population size (ß =2.732, P<.001). CONCLUSION: While variants may impact vaccine effectiveness, current vaccination efforts are helping forestall some cases in NYS. Widespread vaccination is still an important goal. Primary care providers, public officials, and public health scientists should continue to urgently promote and support vaccination efforts.

Assessment of US Healthcare Personnel Attitudes Towards Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination in a Large University Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: As a priority group, healthcare personnel (HCP) will be key to the success of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs. This study assessed HCP willingness to get vaccinated and identified specific concerns that would undermine vaccination efforts. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCP, including clinical and nonclinical staff, researchers, and trainees, between 23 November and 5 December 2020. The survey evaluated attitudes, beliefs, and willingness to get vaccinated. RESULTS: There were 5287 respondents with a mean (SD) age of 42.5 (13.56) years; 72.8% were female (n = 3842). Overall, 57.5 % of individuals expressed intent to receive COVID-19 vaccine; 80.4% were physicians and scientists representing the largest group. 33.6% of registered nurses, 31.6% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master's level clinicians were unsure they would take the vaccine (P < .001). Respondents who were older, male, White, or Asian were more likely to get vaccinated than other groups. Vaccine safety, potential adverse events, efficacy, and speed of vaccine development dominated concerns listed by participants. Fewer (54.0%) providers of direct care versus non-care providers (62.4%) and 52.0% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients (vs 60.6% of those who had not) indicated they would take the vaccine if offered (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by hospital roles, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance. These findings highlight important heterogeneity in personal attitudes among HCPs around COVID-19 vaccines and highlight a need for tailored communication strategies.

Impact of COVID-19 on Screening Rates for Colorectal, Breast, and Cervical Cancer: Practice Feedback From a Quality Improvement Project in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Three New York State practice-based research networks provided quality improvement strategies to improve screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal (BCC) cancers in safety-net primary care, over 7 years. In the final year (Y7), the United States experienced the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on BCC cancer screening rates was assessed qualitatively. METHODS: A total of 12 primary care practices participated in Y7 of the quality improvement project. BCC cancer screening rates at year beginning and end were assessed. Practice staff were asked about how COVID-19 impacted screening. Average pre/postintervention screening rates and qualitative thematic analysis regarding how COVID-19 impacted cancer screening were ascertained. RESULTS: In Y7, there was an increase in breast cancer and a decrease in colorectal and cervical cancer screening rates compared to the previous project year. Many practices were able to continue pre-COVID-19 cancer screening processes. Overall, practices reported loss of staff, changes in data entry, and a shift from preventive screening to care of sick patients. Telehealth was vital for practices to continue serving patients but had a less positive impact on patients with financial/technological disadvantages. BCC cancer screenings were impacted at various levels. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted primary care practice cancer screening; however, some practices were able to mitigate effects by shifting focus to processes supporting screening outside of in-person office visits.

A seq2seq model to forecast the COVID-19 cases, deaths and reproductive R numbers in US counties.

The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has killed almost two million people worldwide and over 400 thousand in the United States (US). As the pandemic evolves, informed policy-making and strategic resource allocation relies on accurate forecasts. To predict the spread of the virus within US counties, we curated an array of county-level demographic and COVID-19-relevant health risk factors. In combination with the county-level case and death numbers curated by John Hopkins university, we developed a forecasting model using deep learning (DL). We implemented an autoencoder-based Seq2Seq model with gated recurrent units (GRUs) in the deep recurrent layers. We trained the model to predict future incident cases, deaths and the reproductive number, R . For most counties, it makes accurate predictions of new incident cases, deaths and R values, up to 30 days in the future. Our framework can also be used to predict other targets that are useful indices for policymaking, for example hospitalization or the occupancy of intensive care units. Our DL framework is publicly available on GitHub and can be adapted for other indices of the COVID-19 spread. We hope that our forecasts and model can help local governments in the continued fight against COVID-19.

Systemic Racism and Health Disparities: A Statement from Editors of Family Medicine Journals

Racism is a pervasive and systemic issue that has profound adverse effects on health.1,2 Racism is associated with poorer mental and physical health outcomes and negative patient experiences in the health care system.3,4 As evidenced by the current coronavirus pandemic, race is a sociopolitical construct that continues to disadvantage Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other People of Color.5–8 The association between racism and adverse health outcomes has been discussed for decades in the medical literature, including the family medicine literature. [...]in 2016, Dr. J. Nwando Olayiwola, chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Ohio State University, wrote an essay on her experiences taking care of patients as a Black family physician.10 In January 2019, Family Medicine published an entire issue devoted to racism in education and training.11 Dr. Eduardo Medina, a family physician and public health scholar, coauthored a call to action in 2016 for health professionals to dismantle structural racism and support Black lives to achieve health equity. A critical step is to have the expertise of a medical editor for diversity, equity, and inclusion, and we welcome this input from Renee Crichlow, MD, Boston University Department of Family Medicine's vice chair of health equity.

Social Distancing Metrics and Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Rates: Associations Between Mobile Telephone Data Tracking and R.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the absence of robust preventive or curative strategies, the implementation of social distancing has been a key component of limiting the spread of the virus. METHODS: Daily estimates of R(t) were calculated and compared with measures of social distancing made publicly available by Unacast. Daily generated variables representing an overall grade for distancing, changes in distances traveled, encounters between individuals, and daily visitation, were modeled as predictors of average R value for the following week, using linear regression techniques for 8 counties surrounding the city of Syracuse, New York. Supplementary analysis examined differences between counties. RESULTS: A total of 225 observations were available across the 8 counties, with 166 meeting the mean R(t) < 3 outlier criterion for the regression models. Measurements for distance (ß = 1.002, P = .012), visitation (ß = .887, P = .017), and encounters (ß = 1.070, P = .001) were each predictors of R(t) for the following week. Mean R(t) drops when overall distancing grades move from D+ to C-. These trends were significant (P < .001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: Social distancing, when assessed by free and publicly available measures such as those shared by Unacast, has an impact on viral transmission rates. The scorecard may also be useful for public messaging about social distance, in hospital planning, and in the interpretation of epidemiological models.