Search

During 2016–2018, San Diego County, California, USA, experienced one of the largest hepatitis A outbreaks in the United States in 2 decades. In close partnership with local healthcare systems, San Diego County Public Health led a public health response to the outbreak that focused on a 3-pronged strategy to vaccinate, sanitize, and educate. Healthcare systems administered nearly half of the vaccinations delivered in San Diego County. At University of California San Diego Health, the use of informatics tools assisted with the identification of at-risk populations and with vaccine delivery across outpatient and inpatient settings. In addition, acute care facilities helped prevent further disease transmission by delaying the discharge of patients with hepatitis A who were experiencing homelessness. We assessed the public health roles that acute care hospitals can play during a large community outbreak and the critical nature of ongoing collaboration between hospitals and public health systems in controlling such outbreaks.

Abstract Introduction Digital exposure notification (EN) approaches may offer considerable advantages over traditional contact tracing in speed, scale, efficacy, and confidentiality in pandemic control. We applied the science of learning health systems to test the effect of framing and digital means, email vs Short Message Service (SMS), on EN adoption among patients of an academic health center. Methods We tested three communication approaches of the Apple and Google EN system in a rapid learning cycle involving 15 000 patients pseudorandomly assigned to three groups. The patients in the first group received a 284‐word email that presented EN as a tool that can help slow the spread. The patients in the second group received a 32‐word SMS that described EN as a new tool to help slow the spread (SlowTheSpreadSMS). Patients in the third group received a 47‐word SMS that depicted the system as a new digital tool that can empower them to protect their family and friends (EmpowerSMS). A brief four‐question anonymous survey of adoption was included in a reminder message sent 2 days after the initial outreach. Results One hundred and sixty people responded to the survey within 1 week: 2.33% from EmpowerSMS, 0.97% from SlowTheSpreadSMS, and 0.53% from emails; 29 (41.43%), 24 (41.38%), and 11 (34.38%) reported having adopted EN from each group, respectively. Patient reported barriers to adoption included iOS version incompatibility, privacy concerns, and low trust of government agencies or companies like Apple and Google. Patients recommended that healthcare systems play an active role in disseminating information about this tool. Patients also recommended advertising on social media and providing reassurance about privacy. Conclusions The EmpowerSMS resulted in relatively more survey responses. Both SMS groups had slightly higher, but not statistically significant EN adoption rates compared to email. Findings from the pilot not only informed operational decision‐making in our health system but also contributed to EN rollout planning in our State.

The study aim is to estimate sensitivity and specificity of anal cytology for histologic HSIL in analyses adjusted for the imperfect biopsy reference standard.Retrospective cohort study of an anal dysplasia screening program for HIV infected adults. We estimated the prevalence of histologic HSIL by concurrent cytology category and the associated cytology ROC area. Cytology operating characteristics for HSIL were estimated and adjusted for the imperfect reference standard by 3 methodologies. The study cohort included 261 patients with 3 available measures: (1) referral cytology; (2) HRA cytology; and (3) HRA directed biopsy. The prevalence of biopsy HSIL varied according to the concurrent HRA cytology result: 64.5% for HSIL or ASC-H, 12.6% for LSIL, 10.9% for ASCUS, and 6.3% for no abnormality. The cytology ROC area was 0.78. The observed prevalence of HSIL was 37% (referral cytology), 24% (HRA cytology), and 24% (HRA biopsy). Unadjusted estimates of sensitivity and specificity of cytology were 0.66 and 0.90, respectively. Adjusted estimates varied from 0.47-0.89 (sensitivity) and 0.89-1.0 (specificity).Analysis of a single dataset yields widely different estimates of anal cytology operating characteristics that depend on difficult to verify assumptions regarding the accuracy of the imperfect reference standard.

The Centers for Disease Control recommend screening for asymptomatic sexually transmitted infection (STI) among HIV-infected men when there is self-report of unprotected anal-receptive exposure. The study goals were: (1) to estimate the validity and usefulness for screening policies of self-reported unprotected anal-receptive exposure as a risk indicator for asymptomatic anorectal infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) and/or Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). (2) to estimate the number of infections that would be missed if anal diagnostic assays were not performed among patients who denied unprotected anorectal exposure in the preceding month.Retrospective analysis in HIV primary care and high resolution anoscopy (HRA) clinics. HIV-infected adult men were screened for self-reported exposure during the previous month at all primary care and HRA appointments. Four sub-cohorts were defined based on microbiology methodology (GC culture and CT direct fluorescent antibody vs. GC/CT nucleic acid amplification test) and clinical setting (primary care vs. HRA). Screening question operating characteristics were estimated using contingency table methods and then pooled across subcohorts. Among 803 patients, the prevalence of anorectal GC/CT varied from 3.5-20.1% in the 4 sub-cohorts. The sensitivity of the screening question for self-reported exposure to predict anorectal STI was higher in the primary care than in the HRA clinic, 86-100% vs. 12-35%, respectively. The negative predictive value of the screening question to predict asymptomatic anorectal STI was > or = 90% in all sub-cohorts. In sensitivity analyses, the probability of being an unidentified case among those denying exposure increased from 0.4-8.1% in the primary care setting, and from 0.9-18.8% in the HRA setting as the prevalence varied from 1-20%.As STI prevalence increases, denial of unprotected anal-receptive exposure leads to an increasingly unacceptable proportion of unidentified asymptomatic anorectal STI if used as a criterion not to obtain microbiologic assays.