Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Public Health Rep ; : 333549221077073, 2022 Mar 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1724145

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Understanding and identifying disparities in COVID-19 testing outcomes can help allocate resources to where they are most needed. The objective of this study was to estimate the association between lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) identity and SARS-CoV-2 test positivity. METHODS: Data were from the Rhode Island SARS-CoV-2 surveillance database and included tests scheduled from June 8, 2020, through January 15, 2021. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations accounting for repeat testing to estimate the odds of receiving a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 by LGBTQ+ identity and race/ethnicity, adjusting for sociodemographic and temporal confounders. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis of 232 025 tests, LGBTQ+ people had lower odds of receiving a positive test result than cisgender heterosexual people (5.4% vs 8.7%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.59-0.68). Compared with cisgender heterosexual White people, LGBTQ+ White people were significantly less likely (aOR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.61-0.73) and cisgender heterosexual people of color were significantly more likely (aOR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.64-1.78) to receive a positive test result. LGBTQ+ people of color had similar test positivity (aOR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.02) as cisgender heterosexual White people. People in sexual minority groups were significantly less likely than heterosexual people to receive a positive test result, but we found no significant differences in test results among cisgender, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQ+ people may be less likely than heterosexual people to receive a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, potentially related to protective health practices and greater social isolation. Addressing racial and ethnic disparities among both LGBTQ+ people and cisgender heterosexual people should be a priority of the public health workforce.

2.
Front Public Health ; 9: 830797, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1662639
3.
BMJ Open ; 11(10): e050362, 2021 10 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462962

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) are common and disabling conditions that can result in social isolation and economic hardship for patients and their families. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) but practical barriers to attending centre-based sessions or the need for infection control limits accessibility. Home-PR offers a potential solution that may improve access. We aim to systematically review the clinical effectiveness, completion rates and components of Home-PR for people with CRDs compared with Centre-PR or Usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PeDRO and PsycInfo from January 1990 to date using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRDs; Intervention: Home-PR; Comparator: Centre-PR/Usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and HRQoL; Setting: any setting). The strategy is to search for 'Chronic Respiratory Disease' AND 'Pulmonary Rehabilitation' AND 'Home-PR', and identify relevant randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials. Six reviewers working in pairs will independently screen articles for eligibility and extract data from those fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We will use the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence. We will perform meta-analysis or narrative synthesis as appropriate to answer our three research questions: (1) what is the effectiveness of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR or Usual care? (2) what components are used in effective Home-PR studies? and (3) what is the completion rate of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR? ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required since the study will review only published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation in conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020220137.


Subject(s)
Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive , Respiration Disorders , Adult , Exercise , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Quality of Life , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL