Search

The sudden onset of the Pandemic due to COVID-19 required universities to quickly transfer face-to-face courses to the online learning environment. Many students found this new learning environment stressful and struggled to successfully complete course work. To identify factors that may have allowed students to succeed, a research study was conducted using a mixed methods design to elicit both quantitative and qualitative data with a focus on impact of the pandemic, impact of broadband access, perceived stress and persistence of students, and grit scores. The findings from this study may help guide future online course development.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation of a test-negative design case-control study in California during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Test-negative case-control study. METHODS: Between February 24, 2021 - February 24, 2022, a team of 34 interviewers called 38,470 Californians, enrolling 1,885 that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases) and 1,871 testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls) for 20-minute telephone survey. We estimated adjusted odds ratios for answering the phone and consenting to participate using mixed effects logistic regression. We used a web-based anonymous survey to compile interviewer experiences. RESULTS: Cases had 1.29-fold (95% CI: 1.24-1.35) higher adjusted odds of answering the phone and 1.69-fold (1.56-1.83) higher adjusted odds of consenting to participate compared to controls. Calls placed from 4pm to 6pm had the highest adjusted odds of being answered. Some interviewers experienced mental wellness challenges interacting with participants with physical (e.g., food, shelter, etc.) and emotional (e.g., grief counseling) needs, and enduring verbal harassment from individuals called. CONCLUSIONS: Calls placed during afternoon hours may optimize response rate when enrolling controls to a case-control study during a public health emergency response. Proactive check-ins and continual collection of interviewer experience(s) and may help maintain mental wellbeing of investigation workforce. Remaining adaptive to the dynamic needs of the investigation team is critical to a successful study, especially in emergent public health crises, like that represented by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Concerns about the duration of protection conferred by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have arisen in postlicensure evaluations. "Depletion of susceptibles," a bias driven by differential accrual of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, may obscure vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates, hindering interpretation. We enrolled California residents who received molecular SARS-CoV-2 tests in a matched, test-negative design, case-control study to estimate VE of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines between February 23 and December 5, 2021. We analyzed waning protection following 2 vaccine doses using conditional logistic regression models. Additionally, we used data from a population-based serological study to adjust for "depletion-of-susceptibles" bias and estimated VE for 3 doses, by time since second dose receipt. Pooled VE of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 91.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 83.8, 95.4) at 14 days after second-dose receipt and declined to 50.8% (95% CI: 19.7, 69.8) at 7 months. Adjusting for depletion-of-susceptibles bias, we estimated VE of 53.2% (95% CI: 23.6, 71.2) at 7 months after primary mRNA vaccination series. A booster dose of BN162b2 or mRNA-1273 increased VE to 95.0% (95% CI: 82.8, 98.6). These findings confirm that observed waning of protection is not attributable to epidemiologic bias and support ongoing efforts to administer additional vaccine doses to mitigate burden of COVID-19.

IntroductionUptake of COVID-19 vaccination remains suboptimal in the United States and other settings. Though early reports indicated that a strong majority of people were interested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, the association between vaccine intention and uptake is not yet fully understood. Ourobjective was todescribe predictors of vaccine uptake, and estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of self-reported COVID-19 vaccine status compared to a comprehensive statewide COVID-19 vaccine registry.MethodsA cohort of California residents that received a molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 infection during 24 February-5 December 2021 were enrolled in a telephone-administered survey. Survey participants were matched with records in a statewide immunization registry. Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare time to vaccination among those unvaccinated at survey enrollment by self-reported COVID-19 vaccination intention.ResultsAmong 864 participants who were unvaccinated at the time of interview, 272 (31%) had documentation of receipt of COVID-19 vaccination at a later date; including 194/423 (45.9%) who had initially reported being willing to receive vaccination, 41/185 (22.2%) who reported being unsure about vaccination, and 37/278 (13.3%) who reported unwillingness to receive vaccination.Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for registry-confirmed COVID-19 vaccination were 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.76) and 0.21 (0.12-0.36) for participants expressing uncertainty and unwillingness to receive vaccination, respectively, as compared with participants who reported being willing to receive vaccination. Time to vaccination was shorter among participants from higher-income households (aHR = 3.30 [2.02-5.39]) and who reported co-morbidities or immunocompromising conditions (aHR = 1.54 [1.01-2.36]).Sensitivity of self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status was 82% (80-85%) overall, and 98% (97-99%) among those referencing vaccination records; specificity was 87% (86-89%).ConclusionWillingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination was an imperfect predictor of real-world vaccine uptake. Improved messaging about COVID-19 vaccination regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status may help improve uptake.

BackgroundDespite lower circulation of influenza virus throughout 2020-2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, seasonal influenza vaccination has remained a primary tool to reduce influenza-associated illness and death. The relationship between the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and/or an influenza vaccine is not well understood.MethodsWe assessed predictors of receipt of 2021-2022 influenza vaccine in a secondary analysis of data from a case-control study enrolling individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 testing. We used mixed effects logistic regression to estimate factors associated with receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine. We also constructed multinomial adjusted marginal probability models of being vaccinated for COVID-19 only, seasonal influenza only, or both as compared with receipt of neither vaccination.ResultsAmong 1261 eligible participants recruited between 22 October 2021-22 June 2022, 43% (545) were vaccinated with both seasonal influenza vaccine and >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 34% (426) received >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine only, 4% (49) received seasonal influenza vaccine only, and 19% (241) received neither vaccine. Receipt of >1 COVID-19 vaccine dose was associated with seasonal influenza vaccination (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15-6.43); this association was stronger among participants receiving >1 COVID-19 booster dose (aOR = 16.50 [10.10-26.97]). Compared with participants testing negative for SARS- CoV-2 infection, participants testing positive had lower odds of receipt of 2021-2022 seasonal influenza vaccine (aOR = 0.64 [0.50-0.82]).ConclusionsRecipients of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to receive seasonal influenza vaccine during the 2021-2022 season. Factors associated with individuals' likelihood of receiving COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines will be important to account for in future studies of vaccine effectiveness against both conditions. Participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in our sample were less likely to have received seasonal influenza vaccine, suggesting an opportunity to offer influenza vaccination before or after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

BackgroundNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are recommended for COVID-19 prevention. However, the effectiveness of NPIs in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains poorly quantified.MethodsWe conducted a test-negative design case-control study enrolling cases (testing positive for SARS-CoV-2) and controls (testing negative) with molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test results reported to California Department of Public Health between 24 February-12 November, 2021. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of case status among participants who reported contact with an individual known or suspected to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 ("high-risk exposure") ≤14 days before testing.Results751 of 1448 cases (52%) and 255 of 1443 controls (18%) reported high-risk exposures ≤14 days before testing. Adjusted odds of case status were 3.02-fold (95% confidence interval: 1.75-5.22) higher when high-risk exposures occurred with household members (vs. other contacts), 2.10-fold (1.05-4.21) higher when exposures occurred indoors (vs. outdoors only), and 2.15-fold (1.27-3.67) higher when exposures lasted ≥3 hours (vs. shorter durations) among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated individuals; excess risk associated with such exposures was mitigated among fully-vaccinated individuals. Cases were less likely than controls to report mask usage during high-risk exposures (aOR = 0.50 [0.29-0.85]). The adjusted odds of case status was lower for fully-vaccinated (aOR = 0.25 [0.15-0.43]) participants compared to unvaccinated participants. Benefits of mask usage were greatest among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated participants, and in interactions involving non-household contacts or interactions occurring without physical contact.ConclusionsNPIs reduced the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection following high-risk exposure. Vaccine effectiveness was substantial for partially and fully vaccinated persons.

BackgroundEstimates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness under real-world conditions, and understanding of barriers to uptake, are necessary to inform vaccine rollout.MethodsWe enrolled cases (testing positive) and controls (testing negative) from among the population whose SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic test results from 24 February to 29 April 2021 were reported to the California Department of Public Health. Participants were matched on age, sex, and geographic region. We assessed participants' self-reported history of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine receipt (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273). Participants were considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after second dose receipt. Among unvaccinated participants, we assessed willingness to receive vaccination. We measured vaccine effectiveness (VE) via the matched odds ratio of prior vaccination, comparing cases with controls.ResultsWe enrolled 1023 eligible participants aged ≥18 years. Among 525 cases, 71 (13.5%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 20 (3.8%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Among 498 controls, 185 (37.1%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 86 (16.3%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Two weeks after second dose receipt, VE was 87.0% (95% confidence interval: 68.6-94.6%) and 86.2% (68.4-93.9%) for BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively. Fully vaccinated participants receiving either product experienced 91.3% (79.3-96.3%) and 68.3% (27.9-85.7%) VE against symptomatic and asymptomatic infection, respectively. Among unvaccinated participants, 42.4% (159/375) residing in rural regions and 23.8% (67/281) residing in urban regions reported hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination.ConclusionsAuthorized mRNA-based vaccines are effective at reducing documented SARS-CoV-2 infections within the general population of California. Vaccine hesitancy presents a barrier to reaching coverage levels needed for herd immunity.

The use of face masks or respirators (N95/KN95) is recommended to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Well-fitting face masks and respirators effectively filter virus-sized particles in laboratory conditions (2,3), though few studies have assessed their real-world effectiveness in preventing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection (4). A test-negative design case-control study enrolled randomly selected California residents who had received a test result for SARS-CoV-2 during February 18-December 1, 2021. Face mask or respirator use was assessed among 652 case-participants (residents who had received positive test results for SARS-CoV-2) and 1,176 matched control-participants (residents who had received negative test results for SARS-CoV-2) who self-reported being in indoor public settings during the 2 weeks preceding testing and who reported no known contact with anyone with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection during this time. Always using a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings was associated with lower adjusted odds of a positive test result compared with never wearing a face mask or respirator in these settings (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.24-0.82). Among 534 participants who specified the type of face covering they typically used, wearing N95/KN95 respirators (aOR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.05-0.64) or surgical masks (aOR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.13-0.90) was associated with significantly lower adjusted odds of a positive test result compared with not wearing any face mask or respirator. These findings reinforce that in addition to being up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, consistently wearing a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings reduces the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using a respirator offers the highest level of personal protection against acquiring infection, although it is most important to wear a mask or respirator that is comfortable and can be used consistently.

ObjectiveStudies describe COVID-19 patient characteristics and outcomes across populations, but reports of variation across healthcare facilities are lacking. The objectives were to examine differences in COVID-19 patient volume and mortality across facilities, and understand whether facility variation in mortality was due primarily to differences in patient versus facility characteristics.DesignObservational cohort study with multilevel mixed effects logistic regression modelling.SettingThe Veterans Health Administration (VA) is the largest healthcare system in the USA.ParticipantsPatients with COVID-19.Main outcomeAll-cause mortality within 45 days after COVID-19 testing (March-May, follow-up through 16 July 2020).ResultsAmong 13 510 patients with COVID-19, 3942 (29.2%) were admitted (2266/3942 (57.5%) ward; 1676/3942 (42.5%) intensive care unit (ICU)) and 679/3942 (17.2%) received mechanical ventilation. Marked heterogeneity was observed across facilities in median age (range: 34.3-83.9 years; facility mean: 64.7, SD 7.2 years); patient volume (range: 1-737 at 160 facilities; facility median: 48.5, IQR 14-105.5); hospital admissions (range: 1-286 at 133 facilities; facility median: 11, IQR 1-26.5); ICU caseload (range: 1-85 at 115 facilities; facility median: 4, IQR 0-12); and mechanical ventilation (range: 1-53 at 90 facilities; facility median: 1, IQR 0-5). Heterogeneity was also observed in facility mortality for all patients with COVID-19 (range: 0%-29.7%; facility median: 8.9%, IQR 2.4%-13.7%); inpatients (range: 0%-100%; facility median: 18.0%, IQR 5.6%-28.6%); ICU patients (range: 0%-100%; facility median: 28.6%, IQR 14.3%-50.0%); and mechanical ventilator patients (range: 0%-100%; facility median: 52.7%, IQR 33.3%-80.6%). The majority of variation in facility mortality was attributable to differences in patient characteristics (eg, age).ConclusionsMarked heterogeneity in COVID-19 patient volume, characteristics and mortality were observed across VA facilities nationwide. Differences in patient characteristics accounted for the majority of explained variation in mortality across sites. Variation in unadjusted COVID-19 mortality across facilities or nations should be considered with caution.

Mucosal impedance is a marker of esophageal mucosal integrity and a novel technique for assessing esophageal function and pathology. This article highlights its development and clinical application for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett's esophagus, and eosinophilic esophagitis. A narrative review of key publications describing the development and use of mucosal impedance in clinical practice was conducted. A low mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) has been shown to be an independent predictor of response to anti-reflux therapy. MNBI predicts medication-responsive heartburn better than distal esophageal acid exposure time. Patients with equivocal evidence of GERD using conventional methods, with a low MNBI, had an improvement in symptoms following the initiation of PPI therapy compared to those with a normal MNBI. A similar trend was seen in a post fundoplication cohort. Strong clinical utility for the use of mucosal impedance in assessing eosinophilic esophagitis has been repeatedly demonstrated; however, there is minimal direction for application in Barrett's esophagus. The authors conclude that mucosal impedance has potential clinical utility for the assessment and diagnosis of GERD, particularly when conventional investigations have yielded equivocal results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The public health community anticipated widespread co-circulation of influenza and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19), during the 2020-21 influenza season. However, [...]