Excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among in-person nonhealthcare workers in six states, September 2020-June 2021.

BACKGROUND: While the occupational risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for healthcare personnel in the United States has been relatively well characterized, less information is available on the occupational risk for workers employed in other settings. Even fewer studies have attempted to compare risks across occupations and industries. Using differential proportionate distribution as an approximation, we evaluated excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry among non-healthcare workers in six states. METHODS: We analyzed data on occupation and industry of employment from a six-state callback survey of adult non-healthcare workers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-based reference data on employment patterns, adjusted for the effect of telework, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. We estimated the differential proportionate distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry using the proportionate morbidity ratio (PMR). RESULTS: Among a sample of 1111 workers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, significantly higher-than-expected proportions of workers were employed in service occupations (PMR 1.3, 99% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.5) and in the transportation and utilities (PMR 1.4, 99% CI 1.1-1.8) and leisure and hospitality industries (PMR 1.5, 99% CI 1.2-1.9). CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of significant differences in the proportionate distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry among respondents in a multistate, population-based survey, highlighting the excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection borne by some worker populations, particularly those whose jobs require frequent or prolonged close contact with other people.

Sociodemographic characteristics, depressive symptoms, and increased frequency of intimate partner violence among LGBTQ people in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic: A brief report

Sociodemographic characteristics and depressive symptoms were assessed for their association with increased frequency of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in a US sample of (N = 1,090) LGBTQ people, using an anonymous online survey. Among those (n = 98) endorsing IPV victimization in their current relationship, more than 18% reported increased frequency since the onset of the pandemic. Respondents in the Southern US, and those with more severe depressive symptoms, were more likely to report an increased frequency of IPV victimization. Providers, researchers, and policymakers should address this prevalent health problem, particularly during public health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd 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 abstract 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 abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Risk factors for COVID-19 among Californians working outside the home, November 2020 - May 2021.

BACKGROUND: Higher incidences of COVID-19 mortality and outbreaks have been found in certain industries and occupations. Workplace factors, including working in close proximity to others and contact with the public can facilitate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially without appropriate protective measures. Limited information is available about workers at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A phone-based, nonprobability study was conducted between November 2020 and May 2021 among California workers who were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about demographics and workplace factors, including industry, occupation, and implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures. Using the SARS-CoV-2 occupational exposure matrix, three exposure metrics and a combination index were used to categorize occupations. We assessed the association between workplace risks and SARS-CoV-2 test positivity using adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: We enrolled 451 (13%) of 3475 potentially eligible workers in the study: 212 with positive and 239 with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. Those working very close to others and with the highest combined exposure index had a positive association with SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Primarily indoor workers had a lower odds of test positivity compared to those with any outdoor work. There was no association between public-facing occupations and test positivity. Participants with employers who implemented mitigation measures in all three control categories-engineering, administrative, and personal protective equipment-had lower odds of test positivity than those with fewer mitigation measures. CONCLUSIONS: Worker groups with higher risk factors should be prioritized for outreach. Assessment of occupational risk factors collectively can provide insight to inform preventative actions for workers, employers, and public health entities.

Reported Exposures Among In-Person Workers With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection in 6 States, September 2020-June 2021.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance systems lack detailed occupational exposure information from workers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health partnered with 6 states to collect information from adults diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who worked in person (outside the home) in non-healthcare settings during the 2 weeks prior to illness onset. METHODS: The survey captured demographic, medical, and occupational characteristics and work- and non-work-related risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Reported close contact with a person known or suspected to have SARS-CoV-2 infection was categorized by setting as exposure at work, exposure outside of work only, or no known exposure/did not know. Frequencies and percentages of exposure types are compared by respondent characteristics and risk factors. RESULTS: Of 1111 respondents, 19.4% reported exposure at work, 23.4% reported exposure outside of work only, and 57.2% reported no known exposure/did not know. Workers in protective service occupations (48.8%) and public administration industries (35.6%) reported exposure at work most often. More than one third (33.7%) of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 coworkers per day and 28.8% of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 customers/clients per day reported exposures at work. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to occupational SARS-CoV-2 was common among respondents. Examining differences in exposures among different worker groups can help identify populations with the greatest need for prevention interventions. The benefits of recording employment characteristics as standard demographic information will remain relevant as new and reemerging public health issues occur.

COVID-19 Outbreaks and Mortality Among Public Transportation Workers - California, January 2020-May 2022.

Work-related factors can contribute to risk for exposure to and infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and subsequent COVID-19-attributable outcomes, including death. Comparing COVID-19 metrics across industries can help identify workers at highest risk. Elevated COVID-19 mortality rates have been reported among all transportation workers, as well as specifically in public transportation industries (1-3). The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) calculated public transportation industry-specific COVID-19 outbreak incidence during January 2020-May 2022 and analyzed all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 deaths among working-age adults in California to calculate public transportation industry-specific mortality rates during the same period. Overall, 340 confirmed COVID-19 outbreaks, 5,641 outbreak-associated cases, and 537 COVID-19-associated deaths were identified among California public transportation industries. Outbreak incidence was 5.2 times as high (129.1 outbreaks per 1,000 establishments) in the bus and urban transit industry and 3.6 times as high in the air transportation industry (87.7) as in all California industries combined (24.7). Mortality rates were 2.1 times as high (237.4 deaths per 100,000 workers) in transportation support services and 1.8 times as high (211.5) in the bus and urban transit industry as in all industries combined (114.4). Workers in public transportation industries are at higher risk for COVID-19 workplace outbreaks and mortality than the general worker population in California and should be prioritized for COVID-19 prevention strategies, including vaccination and enhanced workplace protection measures.

Workplaces Most Affected by COVID-19 Outbreaks in California, January 2020–August 2021

Objectives. To describe which industries have the highest burden of COVID-19 outbreaks in California. Methods. We assigned US census industry codes to COVID-19 outbreaks reported to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) from January 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021, and determined numbers of outbreaks, numbers of outbreak-associated cases, and outbreak incidence levels by industry. We determined characteristics of outbreak-associated cases using individual case data linked to COVID-19 outbreaks. Results. Local health departments reported 19 893 COVID-19 outbreaks and 300 379 outbreak-associated cases to CDPH. The most outbreaks (47.8%) and outbreak-associated cases (54.8%) occurred in the health care and social assistance sector, where outbreak incidence levels were highest in skilled nursing facilities and residential care facilities (1306 and 544 outbreaks per 1000 establishments, respectively). High proportions of outbreaks also occurred in the retail trade (8.6%) and manufacturing (7.9%) sectors. Demographics of outbreak-associated cases varied across industries. Conclusions. Certain California industries, particularly in the health care, manufacturing, and retail sectors, have experienced a high burden of COVID-19 outbreaks during the pandemic. Public Health Implications. Tracking COVID-19 outbreaks by industry may help target prevention efforts, including workforce vaccination. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(8):1180–1190. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306862)

Disparities in COVID-19 fatalities among working Californians.

BACKGROUND: Information on U.S. COVID-19 mortality rates by occupation is limited. We aimed to characterize 2020 COVID-19 fatalities among working Californians to inform preventive strategies. METHODS: We identified laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 fatalities with dates of death in 2020 by matching death certificates to the state's COVID-19 case registry. Working status for decedents aged 18-64 years was determined from state employment records, death certificates, and case registry data and classified as "confirmed working," "likely working," or "not working." We calculated age-adjusted overall and occupation-specific COVID-19 mortality rates using 2019 American Community Survey denominators. RESULTS: COVID-19 accounted for 8,050 (9.9%) of 81,468 fatalities among Californians 18-64 years old. Of these decedents, 2,486 (30.9%) were matched to state employment records and classified as "confirmed working." The remainder were classified as "likely working" (n = 4,121 [51.2%]) or "not working" (n = 1,443 [17.9%]) using death certificate and case registry data. Confirmed and likely working COVID-19 decedents were predominantly male (76.3%), Latino (68.7%), and foreign-born (59.6%), with high school or less education (67.9%); 7.8% were Black. The overall age-adjusted COVID-19 mortality rate was 30.0 per 100,000 workers (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.3-30.8). Workers in nine occupational groups had age-adjusted mortality rates higher than this overall rate, including those in farming (78.0; 95% CI, 68.7-88.2); material moving (77.8; 95% CI, 70.2-85.9); construction (62.4; 95% CI, 57.7-67.4); production (60.2; 95% CI, 55.7-65.0); and transportation (57.2; 95% CI, 52.2-62.5) occupations. While occupational differences in mortality were evident across demographic groups, mortality rates were three-fold higher for male compared with female workers and three- to seven-fold higher for Latino and Black workers compared with Asian and White workers. CONCLUSION: Californians in manual labor and in-person service occupations experienced disproportionate COVID-19 mortality, with the highest rates observed among male, Latino, and Black workers; these occupational group should be prioritized for prevention.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 and Respiratory Virus Sentinel Surveillance, California, USA, May 10, 2020-June 12, 2021.

State and local health departments established the California Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Respiratory Virus Sentinel Surveillance System to conduct enhanced surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens at sentinel outpatient testing sites in 10 counties throughout California, USA. We describe results obtained during May 10, 2020‒June 12, 2021, and compare persons with positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR results by using Poisson regression. We detected SARS-CoV-2 in 1,696 (19.6%) of 8,662 specimens. Among 7,851 specimens tested by respiratory panel, rhinovirus/enterovirus was detected in 906 (11.5%) specimens and other respiratory pathogens in 136 (1.7%) specimens. We also detected 23 co-infections with SARS-CoV-2 and another pathogen. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was associated with male participants, an age of 35-49 years, Latino race/ethnicity, obesity, and work in transportation occupations. Sentinel surveillance can provide useful virologic and epidemiologic data to supplement other disease monitoring activities and might become increasingly useful as routine testing decreases.

Is a Zoom, Family-Based Intervention Feasible during a Pandemic?

Background: Access to psychosocial services is limited, especially during a pandemic. A Zoom-delivered family-based intervention for adolescents with type 1 diabetes has the potential to enhance access to psychosocial services. Methods: Nine families enrolled in a pilot of a 6-session online (Zoom) intervention for adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected via online focus groups and surveys. Results: Teens' ages ranged from 12-17 years (M=14.9, SD=1.76) and most self-identified as male (78%). All parents self-identified as female and most families self-identified as non-Hispanic white (78%). Qualitative results revealed that participants found the program to be generally helpful and would recommend the program to others. Perceived benefits included increased parental empathy toward teens, enhanced parental involvement in teens' diabetes management, and decreased parent-teen conflict. Participants conveyed that these benefits were particularly impactful given increased family contact and tensions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Identified areas for improvement included adding follow-up group sessions with parents to maintain program impact on parenting over time and to target teens in early adolescence, when family dynamics are more malleable. Quantitative results from paired t-tests of pre-post comparisons revealed no significant differences in teen or parental diabetes distress or depression (all p>0.05), but should be interpreted with caution due to small sample size. Conclusions: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents responded positively to this program and found it particularly relevant during the current pandemic. Zoom delivery of these programs may be instrumental in their feasibility, acceptability, and ultimately dissemination in the future.

Using Peer Power to Reduce Health Disparities: Implementation of a Diabetes Support Coach Program in Federally Qualified Health Centers

There are pervasive disparities in health outcomes for people living with diabetes based on socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity. These longstanding disparities are magnified by the devastating impact of COVID-19 for underserved communities with diabetes. As part of a Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO™) Diabetes outreach program in Florida and California, over 15 participating Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) were provided Diabetes Support Coaches (DSC) to facilitate patient engagement. DSCs hold invaluable expert knowledge as they live with diabetes, themselves, and reside in the geographic catchment areas they serve - combining a traditional Community Health Worker (CHW) role with peer support models. DSCs complete standardized training in health coaching and receive Diabetes Paraprofessional Level 1 certification through the American Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (ADCES). DSCs offer one-on-one peer support for interested patients, create local resource guides for diabetes management, host community events, disseminate information about technologies like continuous glucose monitors (CGM), and assist with appointment reminders and other engagement activities. Patient encounters with DSCs are documented in REDCap® and pre/post-test evaluation for patients includes HbA1c, the Diabetes Distress Scale, use of diabetes technology, and social support density. Preliminary data from n=19 adults with T1D and T2D (9 Hispanic, 10 Non-Hispanic Black) participating with DSCs at two FQHCs in Miami show statistically significant improvement in HbA1c mean ± SD: -1.21 ± 1.49, 95% CI (-1.93, -0.49) p<0.01). The mechanisms of patient engagement implemented by DSC became a critical tool for patient engagement during COVID-19. The use of DSC and CHWs, during COVID-19 and beyond, is critical for reaching underserved communities with diabetes.

Democratizing type 1 diabetes specialty care in the primary care setting to reduce health disparities: project extension for community healthcare outcomes (ECHO) T1D.

INTRODUCTION: Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) is a tele-education outreach model that seeks to democratize specialty knowledge to reduce disparities and improve health outcomes. Limited utilization of endocrinologists forces many primary care providers (PCPs) to care for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) without specialty support. Accordingly, an ECHO T1D program was developed and piloted in Florida and California. Our goal was to demonstrate the feasibility of an ECHO program focused on T1D and improve PCPs' abilities to manage patients with T1D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Health centers (ie, spokes) were recruited into the ECHO T1D pilot through an innovative approach, focusing on Federally Qualified Health Centers and through identification of high-need catchment areas using the Neighborhood Deprivation Index and provider geocoding. Participating spokes received weekly tele-education provided by the University of Florida and Stanford University hub specialty team through virtual ECHO clinics, real-time support with complex T1D medical decision-making, access to a diabetes support coach, and access to an online repository of diabetes care resources. Participating PCPs completed pre/post-tests assessing diabetes knowledge and confidence and an exit survey gleaning feedback about overall ECHO T1D program experiences. RESULTS: In Florida, 12 spoke sites enrolled with 67 clinics serving >1000 patients with T1D. In California, 11 spoke sites enrolled with 37 clinics serving >900 patients with T1D. During the 6-month intervention, 27 tele-education clinics were offered and n=70 PCPs (22 from Florida, 48 from California) from participating spoke sites completed pre/post-test surveys assessing diabetes care knowledge and confidence in diabetes care. There was statistically significant improvement in diabetes knowledge (p≤0.01) as well as in diabetes confidence (p≤0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The ECHO T1D pilot demonstrated proof of concept for a T1D-specific ECHO program and represents a viable model to reach medically underserved communities which do not use specialists.

Impacts of COVID-19 on residential treatment programs for substance use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic may present special challenges for residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities, which may lack infrastructure and support to implement infection control protocols while maintaining on-site treatment services. However, little is known about how residential SUD treatment programs are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The research team conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 directors of 20 residential SUD treatment programs across California during the state's shelter-in-place order. The researchers then analyzed qualitative interview data thematically and coded them using ATLAS.ti software. FINDINGS: Thematic analyses identified six major themes: program-level impacts, staff impacts, client impacts, use of telehealth, program needs, and positive effects. "Program-level impacts" were decreased revenue from diminished client censuses and insufficient resources to implement infection control measures. "Staff impacts" included layoffs, furloughs, and increased physical and emotional fatigue. "Client impacts" were delayed treatment initiation; receipt of fewer services while in treatment; lower retention; and economic and psychosocial barriers to community re-entry. "Use of telehealth" included technical and interpersonal challenges associated with telehealth visits. "Program needs" were personal protective equipment (PPE), stimulus funding, hazard pay, and consistent public health guidance. "Positive effects" of the pandemic response included increased attention to hygiene and health, telehealth expansion, operational improvements, and official recognition of SUD treatment as an essential health care service. CONCLUSION: Study findings highlight COVID-related threats to the survival of residential SUD treatment programs; retention of the SUD treatment workforce; and clients' SUD treatment outcomes. These findings also identify opportunities to improve SUD service delivery and suggest avenues of support for residential SUD treatment facilities during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.