Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Am J Health Promot ; : 8901171221119796, 2022 Aug 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2236442

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Information on incentives for COVID-19 testing is needed to understand effective practices that encourage testing uptake. We describe characteristics of those who received an incentive after performing a rapid antigen test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive analysis of survey data. SETTING: During April 29-May 9, 2021, COVID-19 rapid antigen testing was offered in 2 Maryland cities. SAMPLE: Convenience sample of 553 adults (≥18 years) who tested and received an incentive; 93% consented to survey. MEASURES: Survey questions assessed reasons for testing, testing history, barriers, and demographics. ANALYSIS: Robust Poisson regressions were used to determine characteristic differences based on testing history and between participants who would re-test in the future without an incentive vs participants who would not. RESULTS: The most common reasons for testing were the desire to be tested (n = 280; 54%) and convenience of location (n = 146; 28%). Those motivated by an incentive to test (n = 110; 21%) were 5.83 times as likely to state they would not test again without an incentive, compared to those with other reasons for testing (95% CI: 2.67-12.72, P < .001). CRITICAL LIMITATIONS: No comparative study group. CONCLUSION: Results indicate internal motivation and convenience were prominent factors supporting testing uptake. Incentives may increase community testing participation, particularly among people who have never tested. Keywords COVID-19, pandemic, incentives, health behavior, community testing.

2.
J Occup Environ Med ; 64(1): 58-63, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1931932

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Before community transmission of COVID-19 was recognized in the United States, cruise ship passengers with high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 were repatriated and quarantined. We describe cases of influenza-like illness (ILI) among responders. METHODS: We reviewed situation reports and responder illness reports to characterize ill responders, including illness onset date, symptoms, fever, diagnostic tests, potential breaches in PPE use, and return to work status. RESULTS: Among 339 responders, nine (3%) reported ILI. No breaches in PPE were reported. Three responders with ILI were tested for both SARS-CoV-2 infection and influenza A; none tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and two tested positive for influenza A. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an outbreak of ILI among responders, none were diagnosed with COVID-19, suggesting preventive measures in place might have been sufficient to prevent responders from SARS-CoV-2 exposure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2 , Ships , United States/epidemiology
3.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(6): 208-211, 2021 Feb 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1079854

ABSTRACT

Approximately 41% of adults aged 18-24 years in the United States are enrolled in a college or university (1). Wearing a face mask can reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2), and many colleges and universities mandate mask use in public locations and outdoors when within six feet of others. Studies based on self-report have described mask use ranging from 69.1% to 86.1% among adults aged 18-29 years (3); however, more objective measures are needed. Direct observation by trained observers is the accepted standard for monitoring behaviors such as hand hygiene (4). In this investigation, direct observation was used to estimate the proportion of persons wearing masks and the proportion of persons wearing masks correctly (i.e., covering the nose and mouth and secured under the chin*) on campus and at nearby off-campus locations at six rural and suburban universities with mask mandates in the southern and western United States. Trained student observers recorded mask use for up to 8 weeks from fixed sites on campus and nearby. Among 17,200 observed persons, 85.5% wore masks, with 89.7% of those persons wearing the mask correctly (overall correct mask use: 76.7%). Among persons observed indoors, 91.7% wore masks correctly. The proportion correctly wearing masks indoors varied by mask type, from 96.8% for N95-type masks and 92.2% for cloth masks to 78.9% for bandanas, scarves, and similar face coverings. Observed indoor mask use was high at these six universities with mask mandates. Colleges and universities can use direct observation findings to tailor training and messaging toward increasing correct mask use.


Subject(s)
Masks/statistics & numerical data , Masks/standards , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Students/psychology , Universities/legislation & jurisprudence , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Students/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(39): 1398-1403, 2020 Oct 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-809624

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. During January 21-July 25, 2020, in response to official requests for assistance with COVID-19 emergency public health response activities, CDC deployed 208 teams to assist 55 state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments. CDC deployment data were analyzed to summarize activities by deployed CDC teams in assisting state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments to identify and implement measures to contain SARS-CoV-2 transmission (1). Deployed teams assisted with the investigation of transmission in high-risk congregate settings, such as long-term care facilities (53 deployments; 26% of total), food processing facilities (24; 12%), correctional facilities (12; 6%), and settings that provide services to persons experiencing homelessness (10; 5%). Among the 208 deployed teams, 178 (85%) provided assistance to state health departments, 12 (6%) to tribal health departments, 10 (5%) to local health departments, and eight (4%) to territorial health departments. CDC collaborations with health departments have strengthened local capacity and provided outbreak response support. Collaborations focused attention on health equity issues among disproportionately affected populations (e.g., racial and ethnic minority populations, essential frontline workers, and persons experiencing homelessness) and through a place-based focus (e.g., persons living in rural or frontier areas). These collaborations also facilitated enhanced characterization of COVID-19 epidemiology, directly contributing to CDC data-informed guidance, including guidance for serial testing as a containment strategy in high-risk congregate settings, targeted interventions and prevention efforts among workers at food processing facilities, and social distancing.


Subject(s)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Public Health Administration , Public Health Practice , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Local Government , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , State Government , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL