COVID-19 Vaccine Perceptions Survey for Real-Time Vaccine Outreach in Marin County, California.

BACKGROUND: Understanding and addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is crucial to informing vaccination outreach strategies and achieving high vaccination coverage. Marin County, California, United States, has a history of vaccine hesitancy regarding childhood vaccinations required for school entry. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe and address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Marin County to inform outreach and messaging. Our objectives were to identify subgroups with high COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy early in distribution, better understand local concerns and feedback about the COVID-19 vaccine distribution process, and inform tailored vaccine messaging to increase vaccination confidence and coverage. METHODS: The survey, which was administered from January 3 to May 10, 2021, queried demographics, vaccine acceptance, reasons for hesitancy, and reasons for acceptance. Open-ended questions were used for respondents to report additional reasons for hesitancy and for general feedback about the vaccine distribution process. We conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses stratified by COVID-19 vaccine acceptance to identify subgroups with high hesitancy. Results were shared weekly in real-time with leadership and key community partners working on vaccine outreach. RESULTS: Among the 5,618 survey responses, there were differences in vaccine hesitancy by sociodemographic characteristics with the highest hesitancy reported among subgroups identifying as Black/African American and young adult, and within the lowest family income grouping. The most common reason for vaccine hesitancy was "uncertain about the side effects of the vaccine" (67.3% endorsement) and responses varied by race and ethnicity. Qualitative data revealed equity-related, vaccine distribution, and vaccine access themes that were not present in structured responses. Vaccine hesitancy survey results were paired with vaccination coverage and COVID-19 case data to inform tailored outreach strategies and priorities week-to-week. CONCLUSIONS: Marin County had some of the highest COVID-19 vaccination rates in the United States during the pandemic and met equity goals aimed at ensuring vulnerable populations received vaccinations. Presenting real-time survey findings with leadership and key community partners informed a timely and tailored COVID-19 vaccine outreach and delivery strategy.

Phased Return of Students to 77 Transitional Kindergarten-8th Grade Schools With Cohesive Mitigation Strategies Serving as Protective Factors Against the Increase of COVID-19 Cases in Marin County: September 2020-January 2021.

Background and objective Earlier uncertain implications of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the pediatric population prompted the authorities to close schools worldwide under the premise that school settings would serve as drivers of an increase in the cases of COVID-19. Safe and equitable full-in-person school instruction is a critical factor in the continued educational gains of children and for their general well-being. The objective of this study was to report epidemiological trends related to the increasing percentage of students returning to in-person instruction, the suspected in-school transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, and countywide COVID-19 case rates during the first 21 weeks of school reopening in Marin County, CA, in the fall of 2020. Materials and methods The institutional review board (IRB) approval was waived for this study as it did not involve any identifiable human subjects data. Retrospective electronic reviews of countywide COVID-19 daily case count and COVID-19-related reports associated with in-person school participants from 77 schools in Marin County, CA, from September 8, 2020, to January 29, 2021, were conducted. The data were made available in collaboration with the Marin County Office of Education (MCOE) and Marin County Department of Health and Human Services (Marin HHS). Descriptive trends analyses were performed to determine whether the phased increase of students attending in-person learning was a significant contributor to countywide COVID-19 incidence rate, crude rate, and in-school COVID-19 viral transmission. This is the first long retrospective study of COVID-19 data among the reopened school population during the second half of the first pandemic year. It was conducted in a 21-week surveillance period involving an immense collaboration between Marin County's public health officials and school administrators. Results Over the 21-week observational period involving 17,639 students, 4,938 school staff, and 899,175 student days, the countywide COVID-19 crude rate decreased (from 89.9 to 35.89 per 10,000) as more students returned to in-person learning. The schools' strict adherence to public health guidance and site-specific safety plans against COVID-19 yielded a significantly reduced incidence rate of 0.84% among in-person learning participants; only nine cases were traced to suspected in-school SARS-CoV-2 transmission by way of rigorous contact tracing. The countywide COVID-19 incidence rate was 2.09%. Conclusions It is possible to minimize COVID-19 transmissions in in-person learning settings with cohesive mitigation strategies, specifically strict adherence to proper masking by students and staff while on school grounds. There is no clear correlation that the increasing phased return of students to in-person school drove an increase in countywide COVID-19 cases in Marin County, CA. Our findings revealed that schools were capable of safely resuming operations by following public health orders and recommendations. The increasing percentage of students returning to in-person school did not drive an increased COVID-19 case rate in the community. On the contrary, this analysis revealed that there was a drop in countywide COVID-19 cases as the phased student return percentage increased.

Pathways to health: a framework for health-focused research and practice.

Public health research and practice is faced with three problems: 1) a focus on disease instead of health, 2) consideration of risk factor/disease relationships one at a time, and 3) attention to individuals with limited regard for the communities in which they live. We propose a framework for health-focused research and practice. This framework encompasses individual and community pathways to health while incorporating the dynamics of context and overall population vulnerability and resilience. Individual pathways to health may differ, but commonalities will exist. By understanding these commonalities, communities can work to support health-promoting pathways in addition to removing barriers. The perspective afforded by viewing health as a dynamic process instead of as a collection of risk factors and diseases expands the number of approaches to improving health globally. Using this approach, multidisciplinary research teams working with active community participants have the potential to reshape health and intervention sciences.

Efficacy of a jellyfish sting inhibitor in preventing jellyfish stings in normal volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the protective effects of a jellyfish sting inhibitor formulated in sunscreen lotion vs conventional sunscreen against Chrysaora fuscescens and Chiropsalmus quadrumanus jellyfish. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy subjects at 2 research sites were randomly assigned to receive the jellyfish sting inhibitor (Nidaria Technology Ltd, Jordan Valley, Israel) to one forearm and conventional sunscreen to the other arm in a blinded fashion. Subjects were stung with jellyfish tentacles on each forearm for up to 60 seconds. Erythema and pain were assessed at 15-minute intervals over a 2-hour period. RESULTS: In the C. fuscescens group, all 12 arms pretreated with conventional sunscreen demonstrated erythema, and all subjects noted subjective discomfort. In contrast, no arm pretreated with the jellyfish sting inhibitor had objective skin changes (P < .01). Two subjects noted minimal discomfort in the arm treated with the sting inhibitor (P < .01). In the C. quadrumanus group, discomfort was reported in 3 of the 12 inhibitor-treated arms compared with 10 of the 12 placebo-treated arms (P < .05). Erythema was noted on 1 arm treated with the inhibitor and 9 arms treated with the placebo (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The jellyfish sting inhibitor prevented sting symptoms of C. fuscescens jellyfish in 10 of 12 subjects and diminished the pain of the jellyfish sting in the remaining 2 subjects. The jellyfish sting inhibitor also inhibited the more severe sting of the C. quadrumanus jellyfish in the majority of subjects. The jellyfish sting inhibitor does not eliminate the sting from C. fuscescens or C. quadrumanus jellyfish but significantly reduces the frequency and severity of stings.

Medication formulation affects quality of life: a randomized single-blind study of clobetasol propionate foam 0.05% compared with a combined program of clobetasol cream 0.05% and solution 0.05% for the treatment of psoriasis.

For topical medications commonly used to treat dermatologic conditions, outcomes may be affected by the choice of delivery vehicles. The aim of this study was to compare quality of life (QOL), effectiveness, user satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness of 2 clobetasol regimens for the treatment of psoriasis over 14 days. In a single-blind design, 32 patients randomized into 2 groups applied either clobetasol foam 0.05% to the skin and scalp or combination clobetasol cream 0.05% to the skin and clobetasol solution 0.05% to the scalp. Psoriasis severity was measured using the standardized Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and self-administered PASI (SAPASI). QOL was assessed via the EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Cost-effectiveness was measured by the amount of medication used per body surface area (BSA) treated and by cost per point improvement in PASI score. In this study, a foam formulation performed better than a cream/solution combination by several measures. A greater absolute improvement in psoriasis severity was seen in the group using the foam than in the group using the cream/solution (mean decrease in PASI=5.0 vs 3.3, P=.05). The PASI score in the foam group decreased by 41% versus 35% in the cream/solution group (P=.17). In scalp psoriasis, the group using the foam had greater improvement in both absolute (P=.03) and percentage (P=.03) terms and than the solution group. When measuring global QOL, foam users had a significantly greater increase in EQ-5D than those using the cream/solution in absolute (P=.05, P=.02) and percentage (P=.04, P=.02) terms (first and second survey components, respectively). Differences in improvement of skin-specific QOL, quantified by DLQI scores between groups, were suggested but not statistically significant. Patients using foam spent less time applying medication compared with previous topical medications (P<.001). No significant difference in cost was appreciated between foam and cream/solution over the period after controlling for BSA (8.18 dollars vs 7.05 dollars per percentage BSA affected, P=.30).