Geospatial disparities in federal COVID-19 test-to-treat program

BackgroundPaxlovid is authorized for the treatment of COVID-19 and must be used within the first 5 days of symptom onset. This limited window for initiating treatment makes rapid access critical. Federal Test-to-Treat programs provide tests, prescriptions, and medication in one visit3. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to map the location of and identify disparities in access to Test-to-Treat programs in the United States (U.S.). MethodsWe obtained location data for public providers of Paxlovid and Test-to-Treat programs in the contiguous U.S. and examined their spatial distribution at the zip code tabulation area level. We defined zip codes as underserved if there was no Test-to-Treat program located within the zip code or within 20 miles of its boundaries. ResultsMore than 52,000,000 people--representing 16% of the continental U.S. population--do not have access to a Test-to-Treat program in their zip code or within 20 miles. The majority of zip codes representing metropolitan areas have a Test-to-Treat program within 20 miles (77%). In contrast, only 30% of small towns and 23% of rural areas have nearby access. Zip codes with a high proportion of Hispanic and Black residents were likely to have access to nearby Test-to-Treat programs (72%, 70%). In contrast, zip codes with a high proportion of Native American residents were likely to be underserved (70%). About half of high-poverty zip codes do not have access to a Test-to-Treat program within 20 miles. DiscussionDisparities in outcomes related to COVID-19 have been apparent since the beginning of the pandemic and continue to grow. While the multi-dimensional measure of social vulnerability was used to expand the federal Test-to-Treat program, some populations remain without access.

Levels and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among sub-Saharan African adolescents

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adolescents poses a challenge to the global effort to control the pandemic. This multi-country survey aimed to assess the levels and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa between July and December 2021. The survey was conducted using computer-assisted telephone interviewing among adolescents in five sub-Saharan African countries, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, and Tanzania. A rural area and an urban area were included in each country (except Ghana, which only had a rural area), with approximately 300 adolescents in each area and 2803 in total. Sociodemographic characteristics and perceptions and attitudes on COVID-19 vaccines were measured. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as definitely not getting vaccinated or being undecided on whether to get vaccinated if a COVID-19 vaccine were available. Log-binomial models were used to calculate the adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between potential determinants and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The percentage of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was 15% in rural Kersa, 24% in rural Ibadan, 31% in rural Nouna, 33% in urban Ouagadougou, 37% in urban Addis Ababa, 48% in rural Kintampo, 64% in urban Lagos, 76% in urban Dar es Salaam, and 88% in rural Dodoma. Perceived low necessity, concerns about vaccine safety, and concerns about vaccine effectiveness were the leading reasons for hesitancy. Healthcare workers, parents or family members, and schoolteachers had the greatest impacts on vaccine willingness. Perceived lack of safety (aPR: 3.61; 95% CI: 3.10, 4.22) and lack of effectiveness (aPR: 3.59; 95% CI: 3.09, 4.18) were associated with greater vaccine hesitancy. The levels of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adolescents are alarmingly high across the five sub-Saharan African countries, especially in Tanzania. COVID-19 vaccination campaigns among sub-Saharan African adolescents should address their concerns and misconceptions about vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Problems with Evidence Assessment in COVID-19 Health Policy Impact Evaluation (PEACHPIE): A systematic strength of methods review

IntroductionAssessing the impact of COVID-19 policy is critical for informing future policies. However, there are concerns about the overall strength of COVID-19 impact evaluation studies given the circumstances for evaluation and concerns about the publication environment. This study systematically reviewed the strength of evidence in the published COVID-19 policy impact evaluation literature. MethodsWe included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on November 26, 2020 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers first independently and then to consensus. The review tool was based on previously developed and released review guidance for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation, assessing what impact evaluation method was used, graphical display of outcomes data, functional form for the outcomes, timing between policy and impact, concurrent changes to the outcomes, and an overall rating. ResultsAfter 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. The majority (n=23/36) of studies in our sample examined the impact of stay-at-home requirements. Nine studies were set aside because the study design was considered inappropriate for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-section), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 1/27 studies passed all of the above checks, and 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, reviewers found that only four of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes. DiscussionThe reviewed literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely failed to meet key design criteria for inference of sufficient rigor to be actionable by policy-makers. This was largely driven by the circumstances under which policies were passed making it difficult to attribute changes in COVID-19 outcomes to particular policies. More reliable evidence review is needed to both identify and produce policy-actionable evidence, alongside the recognition that actionable evidence is often unlikely to be feasible.

Protocol for a Sequential, Prospective Meta-Analysis to Describe COVID-19 in Pregnancy and Newborn Periods

We urgently need answers to basic epidemiological questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant and postpartum women and its effect on their newborns. While many national registries, health facilities, and research groups are collecting relevant data, we need a collaborative and methodologically rigorous approach to better combine these data and address knowledge gaps, especially those related to rare outcomes. We propose that using a sequential, prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is the best approach to generate data for policy- and practice-oriented guidelines. As the pandemic evolves, additional studies identified retrospectively by the steering committee or through living systematic reviews will be invited to participate in this PMA. Investigators can contribute to the PMA by either submitting individual patient data or running standardized code to generate aggregate data estimates. For the primary analysis, we will pool data using two-stage meta-analysis methods. The meta-analyses will be updated as additional data accrue in each contributing study and as additional studies meet study-specific time or data accrual thresholds for sharing. At the time of publication, investigators of 25 studies, including more than 76,000 pregnancies, in 41 countries had agreed to share data for this analysis. Among the included studies, 12 have a contemporaneous comparison group of pregnancies without COVID-19, and four studies include a comparison group of non-pregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19. Protocols and updates will be maintained publicly. Results will be shared with key stakeholders, including the World Health Organization (WHO) Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Research Working Group. Data contributors will share results with local stakeholders. Scientific publications will be published in open-access journals on an ongoing basis.