Group Home Staff Experiences With Work and Health in the COVID-19 Pandemic in Massachusetts.

Importance: Direct reports of the experiences of staff working in group homes for people with serious mental illness (SMI) and/or intellectual or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are rarely reported. Hearing from workers about their experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic may inform future workforce and public policy. Objective: To gather baseline data on worker experience with the perceived effects of COVID-19 on health and work in the pandemic prior to initiating an intervention to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and to measure differences in worker experience by gender, race, ethnicity, education, and resident population served (persons with SMI and/or IDD/DD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-mode, cross-sectional survey study was conducted using online then paper-based self-administration from May to September 2021 at the end of the first year of the pandemic. Staff working in 415 group homes that provided care within 6 Massachusetts organizations serving adults aged 18 years or older with SMI and/or ID/DD were surveyed. The eligible survey population included a census of staff who were currently employed in participating group homes during the study period. A total of 1468 staff completed or partially completed surveys. The overall survey response rate was 44% (range by organization, 20% to 52%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported experiential outcomes were measured in work, health, and vaccine completion. Bivariate and multivariate analyses explore experiences by gender, race, ethnicity, education, trust in experts and employers, and population served. Results: The study population included 1468 group home staff (864 [58.9%] women; 818 [55.7%] non-Hispanic Black; 98 [6.7%] Hispanic or Latino). A total of 331 (22.5%) group home staff members reported very serious perceived effects on health; 438 (29.8%) reported very serious perceived effects on mental health; 471 (32.1%) reported very serious perceived effects on health of family and friends; and 414 reported very serious perceived effects (28.2%) on access to health services, with statistically significant differences observed by race and ethnicity. Vaccine acceptance was higher among persons with higher educational attainment and trust in scientific expertise and lower among persons who self-reported as Black or Hispanic/Latino. A total of 392 (26.7%) respondents reported needing support for health needs, and 290 (19.8%) respondents reported needing support for loneliness or isolation. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, approximately one-third of group home workers reported serious personal health and access to health care barriers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts. Addressing unmet health needs and access to health and mental health services, including inequities and disparities by race, ethnicity, and education, should benefit staff health and safety, as well as that of the individuals with disabilities who rely on them for support and care.

Best practices to reduce COVID-19 in group homes for individuals with serious mental illness and intellectual and developmental disabilities: Protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness (SMI) and intellectual disabilities and/or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) living in group homes (GHs) and residential staff are at higher risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death compared with the general population. METHODS: We describe a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial to assess evidence-based infection prevention practices to prevent COVID-19 for residents with SMI or ID/DD and the staff in GHs. The trial will use a cluster randomized design in 400 state-funded GHs in Massachusetts for adults with SMI or ID/DD to compare effectiveness and implementation of "Tailored Best Practices" (TBP) consisting of evidence-based COVID-19 infection prevention practices adapted for residents with SMI and ID/DD and GH staff; to "General Best Practices" (GBP), consisting of required standard of care reflecting state and federal standard general guidelines for COVID-19 prevention in GHs. External (i.e., community-based research staff) and internal (i.e., GH staff leadership) personnel will facilitate implementation of TBP. The primary effectiveness outcome is incident SARS-CoV-2 infection and secondary effectiveness outcomes include COVID-19-related hospitalizations and mortality in GHs. The primary implementation outcomes are fidelity to TBP and rates of COVID-19 vaccination. Secondary implementation outcomes are adoption, adaptation, reach, and maintenance. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, and 15-months post-randomization. CONCLUSIONS: This study will advance knowledge on comparative effectiveness and implementation of two different strategies to prevent COVID-19-related infection, morbidity, and mortality and promote fidelity and adoption of these interventions in high-risk GHs for residents with SMI or ID/DD and staff. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04726371.

COVID-19 Clinical Diagnostics and Testing Technology.

Given the global nature of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the need for disease detection and expanding testing capacity remains critical priorities. This review discusses the technological advances in testing capability and methodology that are currently used or in development for detecting the novel coronavirus. We describe the current clinical diagnostics and technology, including molecular and serological testing approaches, for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing as well as address their advantages and limitations. Nucleic acid amplification technology for molecular diagnostics remains the gold standard for virus detection. We highlight alternative molecular detection techniques used for developing novel COVID-19 diagnostics on the horizon. Antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 remains poorly understood and proper validation of serology tests is necessary to demonstrate their accuracy and clinical utility. In order to bring the pandemic under control, we must speed up the development of rapid and widespread testing through improvements in clinical diagnostics and testing technology as well as access to these tools.

Are sex discordant outcomes in COVID-19 related to sex hormones?

COVID-19 has a clear sex disparity in clinical outcome. Globally, infection rates between men and women are similar; however, men are more likely to have more severe disease and are more likely to die. The causes for this disparity are currently under investigation and are most likely multifactorial. Sex hormones play an important role in the immune response with estrogen seen as immune boosting and testosterone as immunosuppressing. Additionally, an important protease involved in viral entry, TMPRSS2, is regulated by androgens. Many observational and prospective studies are ongoing or initiating to further examine the role of sex hormones in SARS-CoV-2 infection and if modulation of them is a realistic treatment option.