Symptoms Predicting SARS-CoV-2 Test Results in Resident Physicians and Fellows in New York City

Accurate prediction of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on symptoms can be a cost-efficient tool for remote screening in healthcare settings with limited SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity. We used a machine learning approach to determine self-reported symptoms that best predict a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result in physician trainees from a large healthcare system in New York. We used survey data on symptoms history and SARS-CoV-2 testing results collected retrospectively from 328 physician trainees in the Mount Sinai Health System, over the period 1 February 2020 to 31 July 2020. Prospective data on symptoms reported prior to SARS-CoV-2 test results were available from the employee health service COVID-19 registry for 186 trainees and analyzed to confirm absence of recall bias. We estimated the associations between symptoms and IgG antibody and/or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test results using Bayesian generalized linear mixed effect regression models adjusted for confounders. We identified symptoms predicting a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result using extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Cough, chills, fever, fatigue, myalgia, headache, shortness of breath, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, loss of smell, loss of taste, malaise and runny nose were associated with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. Loss of taste, myalgia, loss of smell, cough and fever were identified as key predictors for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result in the XGBoost model. Inclusion of sociodemographic and occupational risk factors in the model improved prediction only slightly (from AUC = 0.822 to AUC = 0.838). Loss of taste, myalgia, loss of smell, cough and fever are key predictors for symptom-based screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare settings with remote screening and/or limited testing capacity. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of COVID is the property of MDPI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Student experiences with authentic research in a remote, introductory course-based undergraduate research experience in physics

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Instructional labs: Improving traditions and new directions.] Participation in undergraduate research experiences (UREs) has been identified as an important way of increasing undergraduate retention, interest, and identity within the sciences. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been shown to have similar outcomes to UREs but can reach a larger number of students at one time and are accessible to any student simply through enrollment in a course. One key component of a CURE is that students must participate in authentic scientific discovery in which they answer a question where the answer is initially unknown to both students and the scientific community. Here, we present student experiences with authentic research in a large, introductory physics CURE conducted remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. We use student responses to a closed ended survey question, as well as written responses to an open-ended end-of-course assignment to investigate what aspects of real research students felt that they participated in and the extent to which students felt that they participated in authentic research. Most students in the course felt like they engaged in real-world research during the course and a large number of students highlighted their experience with authentic research when asked to describe their experience in the course more broadly. We discuss which elements of the course may have contributed to the students' experiences of authentic research.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine receipt at two integrated healthcare systems in New York City: a cross-sectional study of healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine receipt among healthcare workers and the role of vaccine confidence in decisions to vaccinate, and to better understand concerns related to COVID-19 vaccination. DESIGN: Cross-sectional anonymous survey among front-line, support service and administrative healthcare workers. SETTING: Two large integrated healthcare systems (one private and one public) in New York City during the initial roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine. PARTICIPANTS: 1933 healthcare workers, including nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, environmental services staff, researchers and administrative staff. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccine receipt during the initial roll-out of the vaccine among healthcare workers. RESULTS: Among 1933 healthcare workers who had been offered the vaccine, 81% had received the vaccine at the time of the survey. Receipt was lower among black (58%; OR: 0.14, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) compared with white (91%) healthcare workers, and higher among non-Hispanic (84%) compared with Hispanic (69%; OR: 2.37, 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1) healthcare workers. Among healthcare workers with concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, 65% received the vaccine. Among healthcare workers who agreed with the statement that the vaccine is important to protect family members, 86% were vaccinated. Of those who disagreed, 25% received the vaccine (p<0.001). In a multivariable analysis, concern about being experimented on (OR: 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.6), concern about COVID-19 vaccine safety (OR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.55), lack of influenza vaccine receipt (OR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.44), disagreeing that COVID-19 vaccination is important to protect others (OR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52) and black race (OR: 0.38, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.59) were independently associated with COVID-19 vaccine non-receipt. Over 70% of all healthcare workers responded that they had been approached for vaccine advice multiple times by family, community members and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated high overall receipt among healthcare workers. Even among healthcare workers with concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, side effects or being experimented on, over 50% received the vaccine. Attitudes around the importance of COVID-19 vaccination to protect others played a large role in healthcare workers' decisions to vaccinate. We observed striking inequities in COVID-19 vaccine receipt, particularly affecting black and Hispanic workers. Further research is urgently needed to address issues related to vaccine equity and uptake in the context of systemic racism and barriers to care. This is particularly important given the influence healthcare workers have in vaccine decision-making conversations in their communities.

Disparities in Marijuana and Tobacco Smoke Incursions Among New York City Families During Early Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Once the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in New York City (NYC), stay-at-home orders led to more time spent indoors, potentially increasing exposure to secondhand marijuana and tobacco smoke via incursions from common areas or neighbors. The objective of this study was to characterize housing-based disparities in marijuana and tobacco incursions in NYC housing during the pandemic. DESIGN: We surveyed a random sample of families from May to July 2020 and collected sociodemographic data, housing characteristics, and the presence, frequency, and pandemic-related change in incursions. SETTING: Five pediatric practices affiliated with a large NYC health care system. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 230 caregivers of children attending the practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence and change in tobacco and marijuana smoke incursions. RESULTS: Tobacco and marijuana smoke incursions were reported by 22.9% and 30.7%, respectively. Twenty-two percent of families received financial housing support (public housing, Section-8). Compared with families in private housing, families with financial housing support had 3.8 times the odds of tobacco incursions (95% CI, 1.4-10.1) and 3.7 times the odds of worsening incursions during pandemic (95% CI, 1.1-12.5). Families with financially supported housing had 6.9 times the odds of marijuana incursions (95% CI, 2.4-19.5) and 5 times the odds of worsening incursions during pandemic (95% CI, 1.9-12.8). Children in financially supported housing spent more time inside the home during pandemic (median 24 hours vs 21.6 hours, P = .02) and were more likely to have asthma (37% vs 12.9%, P = .001) than children in private housing. CONCLUSIONS: Incursions were higher among families with financially supported housing. Better enforcement of existing regulations (eg, Smoke-Free Public Housing Rule) and implementation of additional policies to limit secondhand tobacco and marijuana exposure in children are needed. Such actions should prioritize equitable access to cessation and mental health services and consider structural systems leading to poverty and health disparities.

Factors Associated with SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Physician Trainees in New York City during the First COVID-19 Wave.

Occupational and non-occupational risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have been reported in healthcare workers (HCWs), but studies evaluating risk factors for infection among physician trainees are lacking. We aimed to identify sociodemographic, occupational, and community risk factors among physician trainees during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in New York City. In this retrospective study of 328 trainees at the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, we administered a survey to assess risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection between 1 February and 30 June 2020. SARS-CoV-2 infection was determined by self-reported and laboratory-confirmed IgG antibody and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test results. We used Bayesian generalized linear mixed effect regression to examine associations between hypothesized risk factors and infection odds. The cumulative incidence of infection was 20.1%. Assignment to medical-surgical units (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.18-5.34), and training in emergency medicine, critical care, and anesthesiology (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.24-6.92) were independently associated with infection. Caring for unfamiliar patient populations was protective (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.73). Community factors were not statistically significantly associated with infection after adjustment for occupational factors. Our findings may inform tailored infection prevention strategies for physician trainees responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.