Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
AIDS ; 2022 Feb 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1713813

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate unmet needs for HIV ancillary care services by health care coverage type and Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP) assistance among adults with HIV. DESIGN: We analyzed data using the 2017-2019 cycles of the CDC Medical Monitoring Project, an annual, cross-sectional study designed to produce nationally representative estimates of characteristics among adults with diagnosed HIV. METHODS: Unmet need was defined as needing, but not receiving, ≥1 HIV ancillary care service. We estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using predicted marginal means to examine associations between health care coverage type and unmet needs for HIV ancillary care services, adjusting for age. Associations were stratified by receipt of RWHAP assistance. RESULTS: Unmet needs for HIV ancillary care services were highest among uninsured persons (58.7%) and lowest among those with private insurance living ≥400% of the federal poverty level (FPL; 21.7%). Uninsured persons who received RWHAP assistance were less likely than those who did not receive RWHAP assistance to have unmet needs for HIV clinical support services (aPR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.16-0.28) and other medical services (aPR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.59-0.96), but not subsistence services (aPR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.74-1.27). Unmet needs for other medical services and subsistence services did not differ by RWHAP assistance among those with Medicaid, Medicare, or other health care coverage. CONCLUSIONS: RWHAP helped reduce some needs for uninsured persons. However, with growing socioeconomic inequities following the COVID-19 pandemic, expanding access to needed services for all people with HIV could improve key outcomes.

2.
AIDS ; 36(5): 739-744, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1555155

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether reported prevalence of unemployment, subsistence needs, and symptoms of depression and anxiety among adults with diagnosed HIV during the COVID-19 pandemic were higher than expected. DESIGN: The Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) is a complex sample survey of adults with diagnosed HIV in the United States. METHODS: We analyzed 2015-2019 MMP data using linear regression models to calculate expected prevalence, along with corresponding prediction intervals (PI), for unemployment, subsistence needs, depression, and anxiety for June-November 2020. We then assessed whether observed estimates fell within the expected prediction interval for each characteristic, overall and among specific groups. RESULTS: Overall, the observed estimate for unemployment was higher than expected (17% vs. 12%) and exceeded the upper limit of the PI. Those living in households with incomes ≥400% of FPL were the only group where the observed prevalence of depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 period was higher than the PIs; in this group, the prevalence of depression was 9% compared with a predicted value of 5% (75% higher) and the prevalence of anxiety was 11% compared with a predicted value 5% (137% higher). We did not see elevated levels of subsistence needs, although needs were higher among Black and Hispanic compared with White persons. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to deliver enhanced employment assistance to persons with HIV and provide screening and access to mental health services among higher income persons may be needed to mitigate the negative effects of the US COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , HIV Infections/complications , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/psychology , Humans , Mental Health , Pandemics , Unemployment , United States/epidemiology
3.
Lancet ; 399(10320): 152-160, 2022 01 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506422

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the USA, COVID-19 vaccines became available in mid-December, 2020, with adults aged 65 years and older among the first groups prioritised for vaccination. We estimated the national-level impact of the initial phases of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme on COVID-19 cases, emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and deaths among adults aged 65 years and older. METHODS: We analysed population-based data reported to US federal agencies on COVID-19 cases, emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and deaths among adults aged 50 years and older during the period Nov 1, 2020, to April 10, 2021. We calculated the relative change in incidence among older age groups compared with a younger reference group for pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods, defined by the week when vaccination coverage in a given age group first exceeded coverage in the reference age group by at least 1%; time lags for immune response and time to outcome were incorporated. We assessed whether the ratio of these relative changes differed when comparing the pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods. FINDINGS: The ratio of relative changes comparing the change in the COVID-19 case incidence ratio over the post-vaccine versus pre-vaccine periods showed relative decreases of 53% (95% CI 50 to 55) and 62% (59 to 64) among adults aged 65 to 74 years and 75 years and older, respectively, compared with those aged 50 to 64 years. We found similar results for emergency department visits with relative decreases of 61% (52 to 68) for adults aged 65 to 74 years and 77% (71 to 78) for those aged 75 years and older compared with adults aged 50 to 64 years. Hospital admissions declined by 39% (29 to 48) among those aged 60 to 69 years, 60% (54 to 66) among those aged 70 to 79 years, and 68% (62 to 73), among those aged 80 years and older, compared with adults aged 50 to 59 years. COVID-19 deaths also declined (by 41%, 95% CI -14 to 69 among adults aged 65-74 years and by 30%, -47 to 66 among those aged ≥75 years, compared with adults aged 50 to 64 years), but the magnitude of the impact of vaccination roll-out on deaths was unclear. INTERPRETATION: The initial roll-out of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme was associated with reductions in COVID-19 cases, emergency department visits, and hospital admissions among older adults. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Mortality/trends , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Incidence , Male , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(25): 922-927, 2021 Jun 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1282751

ABSTRACT

The U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program launched on December 14, 2020. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritizing COVID-19 vaccination for specific groups of the U.S. population who were at highest risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and death, including adults aged ≥75 years*; implementation varied by state, and eligibility was gradually expanded to persons aged ≥65 years beginning in January 2021. By April 19, 2021, eligibility was expanded to all adults aged ≥18 years nationwide.† To assess patterns of COVID-19 vaccination coverage among U.S. adults, CDC analyzed data submitted on vaccinations administered during December 14, 2020-May 22, 2021, by age, sex, and community-level characteristics. By May 22, 2021, 57.0% of persons aged ≥18 years had received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose; coverage was highest among persons aged ≥65 years (80.0%) and lowest among persons aged 18-29 years (38.3%). During the week beginning February 7, 2021, vaccination initiation among adults aged ≥65 years peaked at 8.2%, whereas weekly initiation among other age groups peaked later and at lower levels. During April 19-May 22, 2021, the period following expanded eligibility to all adults, weekly initiation remained <4.0% and decreased for all age groups, including persons aged 18-29 years (3.6% to 1.9%) and 30-49 years (3.5% to 1.7%); based on the current rate of weekly initiation (as of May 22), younger persons will not reach the same levels of coverage as older persons by the end of August. Across all age groups, coverage (≥1 dose) was lower among men compared with women, except among adults aged ≥65 years, and lower among persons living in counties that were less urban, had higher social vulnerabilities, or had higher percentages of social determinants of poor health. Continued efforts to improve vaccination confidence and alleviate barriers to vaccination initiation, especially among adults aged 18-49 years, could improve vaccination coverage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
5.
J Adolesc Health ; 69(1): 144-148, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275415

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze trends in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and test positivity among persons aged <18 years in a three-site outpatient pediatric practice in Atlanta, Georgia, serving approximately 35,000 pediatric patients. METHODS: Using electronic medical records, weekly trends in SARS-CoV-2 tests performed and the 14-day moving average of test positivity were examined, overall and by age group, during May 24-December 5, 2020. RESULTS: Among 4,995 patients who received at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 test, 6,813 total tests were completed. Overall test positivity was 5.4% and was higher among older pediatric patients (<5 years: 3.3%; 5-11 years: 4.1%; 12-17 years: 8.6%). The number of tests and test positivity increased after holidays and school breaks. CONCLUSIONS: Families might benefit from communication focused on reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission during holidays. In addition, given higher test positivity in children aged 12-17 years, tailoring public health messaging to older adolescents could help limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk in this population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Georgia , Humans , Outpatients
6.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(22): 818-824, 2021 Jun 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1257246

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Urban Population/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Vulnerable Populations/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cities/epidemiology , Humans , Socioeconomic Factors , United States/epidemiology
7.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(19): 725-730, 2021 May 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1227232

ABSTRACT

Compared with other age groups, older adults (defined here as persons aged ≥65 years) are at higher risk for COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality and have therefore been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination (1,2). Ensuring access to vaccines for older adults has been a focus of federal, state, and local response efforts, and CDC has been monitoring vaccination coverage to identify and address disparities among subpopulations of older adults (2). Vaccine administration data submitted to CDC were analyzed to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination initiation among adults aged ≥65 years by demographic characteristics and overall. Characteristics of counties with low vaccination initiation rates were quantified using indicators of social vulnerability data from the 2019 American Community Survey.* During December 14, 2020-April 10, 2021, nationwide, a total of 42,736,710 (79.1%) older adults had initiated vaccination. The initiation rate was higher among men than among women and varied by state. On average, counties with low vaccination initiation rates (<50% of older adults having received at least 1 vaccine dose), compared with those with high rates (≥75%), had higher percentages of older adults without a computer, living in poverty, without Internet access, and living alone. CDC, state, and local jurisdictions in partnerships with communities should continue to identify and implement strategies to improve access to COVID-19 vaccination for older adults, such as assistance with scheduling vaccination appointments and transportation to vaccination sites, or vaccination at home if needed for persons who are homebound.† Monitoring demographic and social factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine access for older adults and prioritizing efforts to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 vaccine are needed to ensure high coverage among this group.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Demography , Female , Humans , Male , Social Factors , United States/epidemiology
8.
Ann Epidemiol ; 57: 46-53, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1081247

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Community mitigation strategies could help reduce COVID-19 incidence, but there are few studies that explore associations nationally and by urbanicity. In a national county-level analysis, we examined the probability of being identified as a county with rapidly increasing COVID-19 incidence (rapid riser identification) during the summer of 2020 by implementation of mitigation policies prior to the summer, overall and by urbanicity. METHODS: We analyzed county-level data on rapid riser identification during June 1-September 30, 2020 and statewide closures and statewide mask mandates starting March 19 (obtained from state government websites). Poisson regression models with robust standard error estimation were used to examine differences in the probability of rapid riser identification by implementation of mitigation policies (P-value< .05); associations were adjusted for county population size. RESULTS: Counties in states that closed for 0-59 days were more likely to become a rapid riser county than those that closed for >59 days, particularly in nonmetropolitan areas. The probability of becoming a rapid riser county was 43% lower among counties that had statewide mask mandates at reopening (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence intervals = 0.51-0.63); when stratified by urbanicity, associations were more pronounced in nonmetropolitan areas. CONCLUSIONS: These results underscore the potential value of community mitigation strategies in limiting the COVID-19 spread, especially in nonmetropolitan areas.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Incidence , Masks , United States/epidemiology
9.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(42): 1535-1541, 2020 Oct 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-890753

ABSTRACT

Poverty, crowded housing, and other community attributes associated with social vulnerability increase a community's risk for adverse health outcomes during and following a public health event (1). CDC uses standard criteria to identify U.S. counties with rapidly increasing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence (hotspot counties) to support health departments in coordinating public health responses (2). County-level data on COVID-19 cases during June 1-July 25, 2020 and from the 2018 CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) were analyzed to examine associations between social vulnerability and hotspot detection and to describe incidence after hotspot detection. Areas with greater social vulnerabilities, particularly those related to higher representation of racial and ethnic minority residents (risk ratio [RR] = 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.4-6.4), density of housing units per structure (RR = 3.1; 95% CI = 2.7-3.6), and crowded housing units (i.e., more persons than rooms) (RR = 2.0; 95% CI = 1.8-2.3), were more likely to become hotspots, especially in less urban areas. Among hotspot counties, those with greater social vulnerability had higher COVID-19 incidence during the 14 days after detection (212-234 cases per 100,000 persons for highest SVI quartile versus 35-131 cases per 100,000 persons for other quartiles). Focused public health action at the federal, state, and local levels is needed not only to prevent communities with greater social vulnerability from becoming hotspots but also to decrease persistently high incidence among hotspot counties that are socially vulnerable.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Residence Characteristics/statistics & numerical data , Social Determinants of Health , COVID-19 , Crowding , Humans , Incidence , Pandemics , Poverty , Risk Assessment , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL