Virtual Care for the Longitudinal Management of Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review

As both the largest integrated health system and largest provider of telehealth in the country, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has a particular interest in understanding how best to implement and utilize virtual care. VHA has long embraced virtual care as part of its mission to "serve all who have served" regardless of their socioeconomic and geographic circumstances. Having begun conducting "virtual care" in the 1960s when doctors first communicated with patient's via TV screens,1 VHA has since provided over 2.6 million episodes of care to more than 900,000 Veterans in 20192 and has distributed over 50,000 data- and video-enabled iPads for Veterans throughout the country.3 Virtual care within VHA includes services such as MyHealtheVet secure messaging, the Home Telehealth program that combines case management principles with remote monitoring to improve access and coordinate care, and the VA Video Connect (VVC) video platform for synchronous visits within both specialty and primary care.4 Increasing Veteran access to care via virtual care has been an integral part of VHA's strategy for improving chronic disease management for a population that is on average older and sicker than their civilian counterparts.5,6 Given the importance that virtual care has for Veteran care even beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, understanding the strengths and limitations associated with synchronous virtual care will be critical in shaping how VHA utilizes virtual care going forward.

Duration of Behavioral Policy Interventions and Incidence of COVID-19 by Social Vulnerability of US Counties, April-December 2020.

OBJECTIVE: State-issued behavioral policy interventions (BPIs) can limit community spread of COVID-19, but their effects on COVID-19 transmission may vary by level of social vulnerability in the community. We examined the association between the duration of BPIs and the incidence of COVID-19 across levels of social vulnerability in US counties. METHODS: We used COVID-19 case counts from USAFacts and policy data on BPIs (face mask mandates, stay-at-home orders, gathering bans) in place from April through December 2020 and the 2018 Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted multilevel linear regression to estimate the associations between duration of each BPI and monthly incidence of COVID-19 (cases per 100 000 population) by SVI quartiles (grouped as low, moderate low, moderate high, and high social vulnerability) for 3141 US counties. RESULTS: Having a BPI in place for longer durations (ie, ≥2 months) was associated with lower incidence of COVID-19 compared with having a BPI in place for <1 month. Compared with having no BPI in place or a BPI in place for <1 month, differences in marginal mean monthly incidence of COVID-19 per 100 000 population for a BPI in place for ≥2 months ranged from -4 cases in counties with low SVI to -401 cases in counties with high SVI for face mask mandates, from -31 cases in counties with low SVI to -208 cases in counties with high SVI for stay-at-home orders, and from -227 cases in counties with low SVI to -628 cases in counties with high SVI for gathering bans. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing COVID-19 prevention measures for longer durations may help reduce COVID-19 transmission, especially in communities with high levels of social vulnerability.

Comparison of National Vulnerability Indices Used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the COVID-19 Response.

OBJECTIVE: Vulnerability indices use quantitative indicators and geospatial data to examine the level of vulnerability to morbidity in a community. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses 3 indices for the COVID-19 response: the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (CDC-SVI), the US COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI), and the Pandemic Vulnerability Index (PVI). The objective of this review was to describe these tools and explain the similarities and differences between them. METHODS: We described the 3 indices, outlined the underlying data sources and metrics for each, and discussed their use by CDC for the COVID-19 response. We compared the percentile score for each county for each index by calculating Spearman correlation coefficients (Spearman ρ). RESULTS: These indices have some, but not all, component metrics in common. The CDC-SVI is a validated metric that estimates social vulnerability, which comprises the underlying population-level characteristics that influence differences in health risk among communities. To address risk specific to the COVID-19 pandemic, the CCVI and PVI build on the CDC-SVI and include additional variables. The 3 indices were highly correlated. Spearman ρ for comparisons between the CDC-SVI score and the CCVI and between the CCVI and the PVI score was 0.83. Spearman ρ for the comparison between the CDC-SVI score and PVI score was 0.73. CONCLUSION: The indices can empower local and state public health officials with additional information to focus resources and interventions on disproportionately affected populations to combat the ongoing pandemic and plan for future pandemics.

Social vulnerability and county stay-at-home behavior during COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, United States, April 7-April 20, 2020.

PURPOSE: Early COVID-19 mitigation relied on people staying home except for essential trips. The ability to stay home may differ by sociodemographic factors. We analyzed how factors related to social vulnerability impact a community's ability to stay home during a stay-at-home order. METHODS: Using generalized, linear mixed models stratified by stay-at-home order (mandatory or not mandatory), we analyzed county-level stay-at-home behavior (inferred from mobile devices) during a period when a majority of United States counties had stay-at-home orders (April 7-April 20, 2020) with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (CDC SVI). RESULTS: Counties with higher percentages of single-parent households, mobile homes, and persons with lower educational attainment were associated with lower stay-at-home behavior compared with counties with lower respective percentages. Counties with higher unemployment, higher percentages of limited-English-language speakers, and more multi-unit housing were associated with increases in stay-at-home behavior compared with counties with lower respective percentages. Stronger effects were found in counties with mandatory orders. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic factors impact a community's ability to stay home during COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. Communities with higher social vulnerability may have more essential workers without work-from-home options or fewer resources to stay home for extended periods, which may increase risk for COVID-19. Results are useful for tailoring messaging, COVID-19 vaccine delivery, and public health responses to future outbreaks.

Effect of taping face masks on quantitative particle counts near the eye: Implications for intravitreal injections in the COVID-19 Era

Purpose : While one might expect that universal masking would decrease the risk of oral flora contamination during the injection procedure, anecdotal reports of oral flora-related endophthalmitis during COVID-19 have emerged. We performed a prospective observational cohort study to determine the effect of taping the top of face masks on air particle counts directed toward the eye during simulated intravitreal injections. Methods : Thirteen healthy N95 qualitative fit tested human subjects were recruited, three women and ten men, with an age range of [24, 35]. Each wore a cloth, surgical, or N95 mask in randomized order. The number of air particles were quantified using a particle counter suspended over the right eye while each subject breathed normally, deeply, or spoke using a standardized script. Particle counts were obtained with the top of each mask taped and untaped. The main outcome measurements were particle counts in the size classes of 0.3 mm, 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, 10 mm, and total particle count. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test for paired differences between taped and untaped particle counts for each combination of mask type and respiratory mode, at each particle size. Results : Taping cloth masks while subjects were speaking significantly reduced particle counts for the size classes of 0.3 mm (p=0.03), 0.5 mm (p=0.01), 1 mm (p=0.03), and total particle counts (p=0.008) compared to no taping. Taping the top of cloth masks during normal or deep breathing did not significantly affect particle counts compared to no taping. Taping the top of surgical or N95 masks did not significantly alter particle counts for any breathing condition tested. Conclusions : Taping the top of cloth masks prior to simulated intravitreal injections significantly reduced air particle counts directed toward the eye when subjects were speaking compared to no taping. This may have implications for decreasing air particles reaching the eye during intravitreal injections, including aerosolized droplets from a patient's mouth that may carry oral pathogens.

Geographic Associations Between Social Factors and SARS-CoV-2 Testing Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic, February-June 2020, Massachusetts.

OBJECTIVES: Widespread SARS-CoV-2 testing is critical to identify infected people and implement public health action to interrupt transmission. With SARS-CoV-2 testing supplies and laboratory capacity now widely available in the United States, understanding the spatial heterogeneity of associations between social determinants and the use of SARS-CoV-2 testing is essential to improve testing availability in populations disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We assessed positive and negative results of SARS-CoV-2 molecular tests conducted from February 1 through June 17, 2020, from the Massachusetts Virtual Epidemiologic Network, an integrated web-based surveillance and case management system in Massachusetts. Using geographically weighted regression and Moran's I spatial autocorrelation tests, we quantified the associations between SARS-CoV-2 testing rates and 11 metrics of the Social Vulnerability Index in all 351 towns in Massachusetts. RESULTS: Median SARS-CoV-2 testing rates decreased with increasing percentages of residents with limited English proficiency (median relative risk [interquartile range] = 0.96 [0.95-0.99]), residents aged ≥65 (0.97 [0.87-0.98]), residents without health insurance (0.96 [0.95-1.04], and people residing in crowded housing conditions (0.89 [0.80-0.94]). These associations differed spatially across Massachusetts, and localized models improved the explainable variation in SARS-CoV-2 testing rates by 8% to 12%. CONCLUSION: Indicators of social vulnerability are associated with variations in SARS-CoV-2 testing rates. Accounting for the spatial heterogeneity in these associations may improve the ability to explain and address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic at substate levels.

Patterns in COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage, by Social Vulnerability and Urbanicity - United States, December 14, 2020-May 1, 2021.

Disparities in vaccination coverage by social vulnerability, defined as social and structural factors associated with adverse health outcomes, were noted during the first 2.5 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination campaign, which began during mid-December 2020 (1). As vaccine eligibility and availability continue to expand, assuring equitable coverage for disproportionately affected communities remains a priority. CDC examined COVID-19 vaccine administration and 2018 CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) data to ascertain whether inequities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage with respect to county-level SVI have persisted, overall and by urbanicity. Vaccination coverage was defined as the number of persons aged ≥18 years (adults) who had received ≥1 dose of any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine divided by the total adult population in a specified SVI category.† SVI was examined overall and by its four themes (socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, racial/ethnic minority status and language, and housing type and transportation). Counties were categorized into SVI quartiles, in which quartile 1 (Q1) represented the lowest level of vulnerability and quartile 4 (Q4), the highest. Trends in vaccination coverage were assessed by SVI quartile and urbanicity, which was categorized as large central metropolitan, large fringe metropolitan (areas surrounding large cities, e.g., suburban), medium and small metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan counties.§ During December 14, 2020-May 1, 2021, disparities in vaccination coverage by SVI increased, especially in large fringe metropolitan (e.g., suburban) and nonmetropolitan counties. By May 1, 2021, vaccination coverage was lower among adults living in counties with the highest overall SVI; differences were most pronounced in large fringe metropolitan (Q4 coverage = 45.0% versus Q1 coverage = 61.7%) and nonmetropolitan (Q4 = 40.6% versus Q1 = 52.9%) counties. Vaccination coverage disparities were largest for two SVI themes: socioeconomic status (Q4 = 44.3% versus Q1 = 61.0%) and household composition and disability (Q4 = 42.0% versus Q1 = 60.1%). Outreach efforts, including expanding public health messaging tailored to local populations and increasing vaccination access, could help increase vaccination coverage in high-SVI counties.

County-Level COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage and Social Vulnerability - United States, December 14, 2020-March 1, 2021.

The U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program began in December 2020, and ensuring equitable COVID-19 vaccine access remains a national priority.* COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minority groups and those who are economically and socially disadvantaged (1,2). Thus, achieving not just vaccine equality (i.e., similar allocation of vaccine supply proportional to its population across jurisdictions) but equity (i.e., preferential access and administra-tion to those who have been most affected by COVID-19 disease) is an important goal. The CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) uses 15 indicators grouped into four themes that comprise an overall SVI measure, resulting in 20 metrics, each of which has national and state-specific county rankings. The 20 metric-specific rankings were each divided into lowest to highest tertiles to categorize counties as low, moderate, or high social vulnerability counties. These tertiles were combined with vaccine administration data for 49,264,338 U.S. residents in 49 states and the District of Columbia (DC) who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose during December 14, 2020-March 1, 2021. Nationally, for the overall SVI measure, vaccination coverage was higher (15.8%) in low social vulnerability counties than in high social vulnerability counties (13.9%), with the largest coverage disparity in the socioeconomic status theme (2.5 percentage points higher coverage in low than in high vulnerability counties). Wide state variations in equity across SVI metrics were found. Whereas in the majority of states, vaccination coverage was higher in low vulnerability counties, some states had equitable coverage at the county level. CDC, state, and local jurisdictions should continue to monitor vaccination coverage by SVI metrics to focus public health interventions to achieve equitable coverage with COVID-19 vaccine.