Public Health Response to Clusters of Rapid HIV Transmission Among Hispanic or Latino Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men - Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, 2021-2022.

During February 2021-June 2022, the Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH) detected five clusters of rapid HIV transmission concentrated among Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in metropolitan Atlanta. The clusters were detected through routine analysis of HIV-1 nucleotide sequence data obtained through public health surveillance (1,2). Beginning in spring 2021, GDPH partnered with health districts with jurisdiction in four metropolitan Atlanta counties (Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett) and CDC to investigate factors contributing to HIV spread, epidemiologic characteristics, and transmission patterns. Activities included review of surveillance and partner services interview data,† medical chart reviews, and qualitative interviews with service providers and Hispanic MSM community members. By June 2022, these clusters included 75 persons, including 56% who identified as Hispanic, 96% who reported male sex at birth, 81% who reported male-to-male sexual contact, and 84% of whom resided in the four metropolitan Atlanta counties. Qualitative interviews identified barriers to accessing HIV prevention and care services, including language barriers, immigration- and deportation-related concerns, and cultural norms regarding sexuality-related stigma. GDPH and the health districts expanded coordination, initiated culturally concordant HIV prevention marketing and educational activities, developed partnerships with organizations serving Hispanic communities to enhance outreach and services, and obtained funding for a bilingual patient navigation program with academic partners to provide staff members to help persons overcome barriers and understand the health care system. HIV molecular cluster detection can identify rapid HIV transmission among sexual networks involving ethnic and sexual minority groups, draw attention to the needs of affected populations, and advance health equity through tailored responses that address those needs.

The Relationship between Health Literacy and COVID-19 Vaccination Prevalence during a Rapidly Evolving Pandemic and Infodemic.

The gap between how health information is communicated and what people understand and can use to make informed health decisions is called health literacy. This gap was exacerbated by the rapidly changing and excessive volume of information, misinformation, and disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. People with lower health literacy may not have understood the importance of COVID-19 vaccination for themselves or for their communities. Our aim was to understand health literacy levels within Fulton County, Georgia, and their relationship to vaccine prevalence. Fulton county residents ages 18 and over (n = 425) completed an on-line Health Literacy Questionnaire. Individual, organizational, functional, interactive, and critical health literacy scales were created. Vaccination prevalence data were collected from the Georgia Vaccine Distribution Dashboard. All data were divided into one of three county areas. There were statistically significant variations in vaccine prevalence χ2(3) = 29.325, p < 0.001 among the three county areas. All levels of health literacy predicted overall county vaccination prevalence F (4,420) = 85.941, p < 0.001, There were significant differences in health literacy levels among two of the three county area pairs; the lowest resourced county area had the lowest vaccination prevalence and health literacy rates. This is the first example of relating direct health literacy measures across a major metropolitan US county with vaccine prevalence data.

Mass Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Residents and Staff in Twenty-eight Long-term Care Facilities in Fulton County, Georgia

Mass screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in long-term care facilities revealed significantly higher prevalence of infection in facilities that screened in response to a known infection compared to those that screened as a prevention measure. "Response" facilities had a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 28.9% while "preventive" facilities prevalence was 1.6% (p <0.001).