Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Nurs Open ; 2023 May 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20243665

ABSTRACT

AIM: To evaluate healthcare provider awareness and uptake of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) billing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention counselling and the delivery of prevention counselling to patients awaiting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test results. DESIGN: Cross sectional survey of US-based healthcare providers in February 2021. METHODS: Analysis of associations with healthcare provider-reported awareness of CMS prevention counselling guidance and billing with provider type, specialty, and work setting. RESULTS: A total of 1919 healthcare providers responded to the survey. Overall, 38% (726/1919) of providers reported awareness of available CMS reimbursement for COVID-19 patient counselling and 29% (465/1614) of CMS billing-eligible providers reported billing for this counselling. Among physicians, those aware of CMS guidance were significantly more likely to bill (58%) versus those unaware (10%). Among RNSights respondents eligible for CMS billing (n = 114), 31% of those aware of the guidance reported billing as compared to 0% of those not aware.

2.
Am J Health Promot ; : 8901171221119796, 2022 Aug 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2236442

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Information on incentives for COVID-19 testing is needed to understand effective practices that encourage testing uptake. We describe characteristics of those who received an incentive after performing a rapid antigen test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive analysis of survey data. SETTING: During April 29-May 9, 2021, COVID-19 rapid antigen testing was offered in 2 Maryland cities. SAMPLE: Convenience sample of 553 adults (≥18 years) who tested and received an incentive; 93% consented to survey. MEASURES: Survey questions assessed reasons for testing, testing history, barriers, and demographics. ANALYSIS: Robust Poisson regressions were used to determine characteristic differences based on testing history and between participants who would re-test in the future without an incentive vs participants who would not. RESULTS: The most common reasons for testing were the desire to be tested (n = 280; 54%) and convenience of location (n = 146; 28%). Those motivated by an incentive to test (n = 110; 21%) were 5.83 times as likely to state they would not test again without an incentive, compared to those with other reasons for testing (95% CI: 2.67-12.72, P < .001). CRITICAL LIMITATIONS: No comparative study group. CONCLUSION: Results indicate internal motivation and convenience were prominent factors supporting testing uptake. Incentives may increase community testing participation, particularly among people who have never tested. Keywords COVID-19, pandemic, incentives, health behavior, community testing.

3.
Vaccine ; 40(48): 6979-6986, 2022 Nov 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2082297

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group. RESULTS: 5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64 years, VE was 93 % (95 % CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91 % (95 % CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Humans , Adult , United States/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing , Vaccine Efficacy , Case-Control Studies , Hospitalization , Syndrome
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(14): 528-532, 2021 Apr 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389867

ABSTRACT

During February 2021, an opening event was held indoors at a rural Illinois bar that accommodates approximately 100 persons. The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and local health department staff members investigated a COVID-19 outbreak associated with this opening event. Overall, 46 COVID-19 cases were linked to the event, including cases in 26 patrons and three staff members who attended the opening event and 17 secondary cases. Four persons with cases had COVID-19-like symptoms on the same day they attended the event. Secondary cases included 12 cases in eight households with children, two on a school sports team, and three in a long-term care facility (LTCF). Transmission associated with the opening event resulted in one school closure affecting 650 children (9,100 lost person-days of school) and hospitalization of one LTCF resident with COVID-19. These findings demonstrate that opening up settings such as bars, where mask wearing and physical distancing are challenging, can increase the risk for community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. As community businesses begin to reopen, a multicomponent approach should be emphasized in settings such as bars to prevent transmission* (1). This includes enforcing consistent and correct mask use, maintaining ≥6 ft of physical distance between persons, reducing indoor bar occupancy, prioritizing outdoor seating, improving building ventilation, and promoting behaviors such as staying at home when ill, as well as implementing contact tracing in combination with isolation and quarantine when COVID-19 cases are diagnosed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Community-Acquired Infections , Restaurants/organization & administration , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Female , Humans , Illinois/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL