Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Assessment of contact tracing for COVID-19 among people experiencing homelessness, Salt Lake County Health Department, March-May 2020.
Fields, Victoria L; Kiphibane, Tair; Eason, Jeffrey T; Hafoka, Siosaia F; Lopez, Adriana S; Schwartz, Amy; Henry, Ankita; Tran, Cuc H; Tate, Jacqueline E; Kirking, Hannah L; Laws, Rebecca L; Venkatappa, Thara; Mosites, Emily; Montgomery, Martha P.
  • Fields VL; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: ish7@cdc.gov.
  • Kiphibane T; Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Eason JT; Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Hafoka SF; Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Lopez AS; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Schwartz A; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Henry A; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Tran CH; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Tate JE; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Kirking HL; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Laws RL; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Venkatappa T; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Mosites E; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Montgomery MP; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Ann Epidemiol ; 59: 50-55, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1198609
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Contact tracing is intended to reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but it is difficult to conduct among people who live in congregate settings, including people experiencing homelessness (PEH). This analysis compares person-based contact tracing among two populations in Salt Lake County, Utah, from March-May 2020.

METHODS:

All laboratory-confirmed positive cases among PEH (n = 169) and documented in Utah's surveillance system were included in this analysis. The general population comparison group (n = 163) were systematically selected from all laboratory-confirmed cases identified during the same period.

RESULTS:

Ninety-three PEH cases (55%) were interviewed compared to 163 (100%) cases among the general population (P < .0001). PEH were more likely to be lost to follow-up at end of isolation (14.2%) versus the general population (0%; P-value < .0001) and provided fewer contacts per case (0.3) than the general population (4.7) (P-value < .0001). Contacts of PEH were more often unreachable (13.0% vs. 7.1%; P-value < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS:

These findings suggest that contact tracing among PEH should include a location-based approach, along with a person-based approach when resources allow, due to challenges in identifying, locating, and reaching cases among PEH and their contacts through person-based contact tracing efforts alone.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ill-Housed Persons / COVID-19 Type of study: Cohort study / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: North America Language: English Journal: Ann Epidemiol Journal subject: Epidemiology Year: 2021 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ill-Housed Persons / COVID-19 Type of study: Cohort study / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: North America Language: English Journal: Ann Epidemiol Journal subject: Epidemiology Year: 2021 Document Type: Article