Provider perspectives on the provision of safe, equitable, trauma-informed care for intimate partner violence survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Early research suggests the COVID-19 pandemic worsened intimate partner violence (IPV) in the US. In particular, stay-at-home orders and social distancing kept survivors in close proximity to their abusers and restricted access to resources and care. We aimed to understand and characterize the impact of the pandemic on delivery of IPV care in Boston. METHODS: We conducted individual interviews with providers of IPV care and support in the Greater Boston area, including healthcare workers, social workers, lawyers, advocates, and housing specialists, who continued to work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using thematic analysis, we identified themes describing the challenges and opportunites providers faced in caring for survivors during the pandemic. RESULTS: Analysis of 18 interviews yielded four thematic domains, encompassing 18 themes and nine sub-themes. Thematic analysis revealed that the pandemic posed an increased threat to survivors of IPV by exacerbating external stressors and leading to heightened violence. On a system level, the pandemic led to widespread uncertainty, strained resources, amplified inequities, and loss of community. On an individual level, COVID-19 restrictions limited survivors' abilities to access resources and to be safe, and amplified pre-existing inequities, such as limited technology access. Those who did not speak English or were immigrants experienced even more difficulty accessing resources due to language and/or cultural barriers. To address these challenges, providers utilized video and telephone interactions, and stressed the importance of creativity and cooperation across different sectors of care. CONCLUSIONS: While virtual care was essential in allowing providers to care for survivors, and also allowed for increased flexibility, it was not a panacea. Many survivors faced additional obstacles to care, such as language barriers, unequal access to technology, lack of childcare, and economic insecurity. Providers addressed these barriers by tailoring services and care modalities to an individual's needs and circumstances. Going forward, some innovations of the pandemic period, such as virtual interactions and cooperation across care sectors, may be utilized in ways that attend to shifting survivor needs and access, thereby improving safe, equitable, and trauma-informed IPV care.

College Campuses and COVID-19 Mitigation: Clinical and Economic Value.

BACKGROUND: Colleges in the United States are determining how to operate safely amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical outcomes, cost, and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 mitigation strategies on college campuses. DESIGN: The Clinical and Economic Analysis of COVID-19 interventions (CEACOV) model, a dynamic microsimulation model, was used to examine alternative mitigation strategies. The CEACOV model tracks infections accrued by students and faculty, accounting for community transmissions. DATA SOURCES: Data from published literature were used to obtain parameters related to COVID-19 and contact-hours. TARGET POPULATION: Undergraduate students and faculty at U.S. colleges. TIME HORIZON: One semester (105 days). PERSPECTIVE: Modified societal. INTERVENTION: COVID-19 mitigation strategies, including social distancing, masks, and routine laboratory screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Infections among students and faculty per 5000 students and per 1000 faculty, isolation days, tests, costs, cost per infection prevented, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Among students, mitigation strategies reduced COVID-19 cases from 3746 with no mitigation to 493 with extensive social distancing and masks, and further to 151 when laboratory testing was added among asymptomatic persons every 3 days. Among faculty, these values were 164, 28, and 25 cases, respectively. Costs ranged from about $0.4 million for minimal social distancing to about $0.9 million to $2.1 million for strategies involving laboratory testing ($10 per test), depending on testing frequency. Extensive social distancing with masks cost $170 per infection prevented ($49 200 per QALY) compared with masks alone. Adding routine laboratory testing increased cost per infection prevented to between $2010 and $17 210 (cost per QALY gained, $811 400 to $2 804 600). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were most sensitive to test costs. LIMITATION: Data are from multiple sources. CONCLUSION: Extensive social distancing with a mandatory mask-wearing policy can prevent most COVID-19 cases on college campuses and is very cost-effective. Routine laboratory testing would prevent 96% of infections and require low-cost tests to be economically attractive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.