Search

This cross-sectional study evaluated COVID-19 contact tracing efforts to identify variations in contact tracing outcomes in different population subgroups. Contact tracing was a critical tool to slow the COVID-19 epidemic. A literature gap evaluating contact tracing elicitation exits, particularly on prioritized groups. We analyzed data from COVID-19 cases linking statewide case management, immunization, laboratory testing, and hospitalization databases in New York State (NYS) outside of New York City from February 1 to November 30, 2021. Focus was cases in home-based residential settings (excluding congregate care) and prioritized groups (educational institutions, large households, close quarters, higher-risk persons, hospitalized). The primary outcome was completed interviews that provided a contact. Of the 550,850 cases interviewed during the study period, 316,645 (57.5%) provided at least one contact. Adults aged 18 to 49 years were most likely to provide contacts than those aged 65 years and older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-1.45). Compared to unvaccinated cases, boosted individuals (aOR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.50-1.73) were most likely to provide contacts, followed by persons with only a primary vaccine series (aOR, 1.3; 95%CI, 1.28-1.33) and partially vaccinated (aOR, 1.21; 95%CI, 1.18-1.24). Repeat cases (aOR, 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.14), pregnant persons (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1,19-1.34), those with underlying conditions (aOR 1.22; 95%CI, 1.20-1.23), and those in K-12 settings (aOR 1.55; 95%CI, 1.50-1.61) were more likely to provide contacts. There was no clear association between hospitalized, while zip code level income may (aOR, 1.006; 95%CI, 1.003, 1.009). Persons from larger households were more likely to provide contacts: aOR for two or more persons vs. one person households ranged from 2.49 to 4.7 (95%CI, 2.20-4.78). Our findings indicate success in eliciting contacts from prioritized groups and identify variable contact elicitation outcomes from different population groups. These results may serve as a tool for future contact tracing efforts., Competing Interests: NO authors have competing interests., (Copyright: © 2023 Dorabawila et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Though the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) home testing kits is increasing, individuals who use home tests are not accounted for in publicly reported COVID-19 metrics. As the pandemic and the methods for tracking cases evolve, it is critical to understand who the individuals excluded are, due to their use of home testing kits, relative to those included in the reported metrics., Methods: Five New York State databases were linked to investigate trends in home-tested COVID-19 cases vs. laboratory-confirmed cases from November 2021 to April 2022. Frequency distributions, multivariate logistic regression adjusted odds ratios (aOR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare the characteristics of the home-tested and laboratory-tested people., Results: Of the 591,227 confirmed COVID-19 cases interviewed, 71,531 (12%) of them underwent home tests, 515,001 (87%) underwent laboratory tests, and 5,695 (1%) underwent both home tests and laboratory tests during this period. Home-tested COVID-19 cases increased from only 1% in November 2021 to 22% in April 2022. Children aged 5-11 years with an aOR of 3.74 (95% CI: 3.53, 3.96) and adolescents aged 12-17 years with an aOR of 3.24 (95% CI: 3.07, 3.43) were more likely to undergo only home tests compared to adults aged 65 years and above. On the one hand, those who were "boosted" (aOR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.82, 1.93), those in K-12 school settings (aOR 2.33, 95% CI: 2.27, 2.40), or those who were possibly infected by a household member (aOR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.22) were more likely to report home testing instead of laboratory testing. On the other hand, individuals who were hospitalized (aOR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.06), who had underlying conditions (aOR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.87), who were pregnant (aOR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.86), and who were Hispanic (aOR 0.50: 95% CI: 0.48, 0.53), Asian (aOR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.34), or Black (aOR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.42, 047) were less likely to choose home testing over laboratory testing., Conclusion: The percentage of individuals with confirmed COVID-19 who used only home testing kits continues to rise. People who used only home testing were less likely to be hospitalized and were those with a lower likelihood of developing a severe disease given factors such as age, vaccination status, and underlying conditions. Thus, the official COVID-19 metrics primarily reflected individuals with severe illness or the potential for severe illness. There may be racial and ethnic differences in the use of home testing vs. laboratory testing., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Dorabawila, Barnes, Ramesh, Hoen, Sommer, Robbins, Backenson, Lutterloh, Hoefer and Rosenberg.)