Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22276918


BackgroundFew global data exist regarding COVID-19 vaccine coverage in people experiencing homelessness (PEH) or precariously housed (PH) who are at high risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death. Given the absence of documented French data, we aimed to determine COVID-19 vaccine coverage in PEH/PH in France, and its drivers. MethodsWe carried out a cross-sectional study following a two-stage cluster-sampling design in Ile-de-France and Marseille, France, in late 2021. Participants aged over 18 years were recruited where they slept the previous night, and then stratified for analysis into three housing groups ("Streets", "Accommodated", and "Housed"). Interviews were conducted face-to-face in the participants preferred language. Multilevel univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were built. Findings3,690 individuals were surveyed: 855 in the "Housed" stratum, 2,321 in the "Accommodated" stratum and 514 in the "Streets" stratum. 76{middle dot}2% (95%CI 74{middle dot}3-78{middle dot}1) reported receiving at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Vaccine uptake varied by stratum, with uptake highest (85.6%; reference) in "Housed", followed by "Accommodated" (75{middle dot}4%; AOR=0{middle dot}79 ; 95%CI 0{middle dot}51-1{middle dot}09 vs Housed) and lowest in "Streets" (42{middle dot}0%; AOR=0{middle dot}38 ; 95%CI 0{middle dot}25-0{middle dot}57 vs Housed). Use for vaccine certificate, socioeconomic drivers and vaccine hesitancy explained vaccine coverage. InterpretationIn France, PEH/PH are less likely than the general population likely to receive COVID-19 vaccines; with the most excluded being the least likely. The influence of both structural drivers and vaccine beliefs in PEH/PH reinforces the importance of targeted outreach, on-site vaccination and sensitisation activities to further vaccine uptake. FundingSante Publique France, Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida/Capnet, Agence Regionale de Sante - Ile de France, Medecins Sans Frontieres, and Societe de Pathologie Infectieuse de Langue Francaise.

Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20207795


BackgroundA nationwide lockdown was implemented in France on 17 March 2020 to control the COVID-19 pandemic. People living in precarious conditions were relocated by the authorities to emergency shelters, hotels and large venues. Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF) then intervened to provide medical care in several of these locations in Paris and in Seine-Saint-Denis, one of its suburbs, between March and June 2020. A seroprevalence survey was conducted to assess the level of exposure to COVID-19 among the population living in the sites. To our knowledge, this is the first assessment of the impact of the pandemic on populations living in insecure conditions in Europe. MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional seroprevalence study in the food distribution sites, emergency shelters and workers residences supported by MSF in Paris and Seine-Saint-Denis, to determine the extent of COVID-19 exposure as determined by SARS-CoV2 antibody seropositivity. The detection of SARS-COV2 antibodies in serum was performed at the Institut Pasteur of Paris using two LuLISA (Luciferase-Linked Immunosorbent Assay) assays and a Pseudo Neutralization Test. A questionnaire covering sociodemographic characteristics, living conditions, adherence to sanitary recommendations and symptom manifestations was also completed. We describe here the seroprevalence site by site and identify the risk factors for seropositivity using a multivariable logistic regression model with site random effects. We also investigated associations between seropositivity and symptoms eventually reported. FindingsOverall, 426/818 individuals tested positive in the 14 sites investigated. Seroprevalence varied significantly with the type of site (chi2 p<0.001). It was highest at 88.7% (95%CI 81.8-93.2) among individuals living in workers residences, followed by 50.5% (95%CI 46.3-54.7) in emergency shelters and 27.8 % (95%CI 20.8-35.7) among individuals recruited from the food distribution sites. Seroprevalence also varied significantly between sites of the same type. Among other risk factors, the odds for seropositivity were higher among individuals living in crowded sites (medium: adj. OR 2.7, 95%CI 1.5-5.1, p=0.001; high: adj. OR 3.4, 95%CI 1.7-6.9, p<0.001) compared with individuals from low crowding sites and among those who reported transit accommodation in a gymnasium before the lockdown (adj. OR 3.1, 95%CI 1.2-8.1, p=0.023). More than two-thirds of the seropositive individuals (68.3%; 95%CI 64.2-72.2) did not report any symptoms during the recall period. InterpretationThe results demonstrate rather high exposure to SARS-COV-2 with important variations between study sites. Living in crowded conditions was identified as the most important explanatory factor for differences in levels of exposure. This study describes the key factors which determine the risk of exposure and illustrates the importance of identifying populations at high risk of exposure in order to orient and adapt prevention and control strategies to their specific needs.