Household factors and the risk of severe COVID-like illness early in the U.S. pandemic

Association of Socioeconomic Factors and Severity of Bronchiolitis Hospitalizations

It is unclear if socioeconomic status (SES) factors influence severity of illness of patients hospitalized with bronchiolitis. This study was conducted to identify SES factors including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Composite Index (SVI), estimated income, proportion of minority, proportion of living below poverty, insurance status, and number of household members associated with length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit admission. Infants hospitalized at a tertiary care urban center for bronchiolitis were identified using International Classification of Diseases codes. Federal information processing system codes were identified from home address and paired with SVI and 2018 census tract. Other measures of SES were obtained from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. Number of household members, insurance, age, sex, and history of prematurity were recorded from patient chart. Length of stay was modeled with mixed effects negative binomial regression and pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission with mixed effects logistic regression with random intercept at the census tract and adjustment for clinical factors. A total of 417 infants had median age of 144 days (interquartile range (IQR): 61, 357) and 136 (33%) were born premature. Median LOS was 62 hours (24, 136) with 97 (23%) patients admitted to the PICU. Median household members were 4 (4, 5). For each increase in household member, there was 7% increase in LOS (incidence rate ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval: 1-1.14, P = .038). Social Vulnerability Composite Index, subcategories, insurance status, estimated income, percent of minority, and percent of poverty did not show any associations with length of hospitalization or PICU admission. Increasing number of household members may be associated with increased bronchiolitis hospital LOS. We find no associations with other SES measures.

Index cases first identified by nasal-swab rapid COVID-19 tests had more transmission to household contacts than cases identified by other test types

At-home rapid COVID-19 tests in the U.S. utilize nasal-swab specimens and require high viral loads to reliably give positive results. Longitudinal studies from the onset of infection have found infectious virus can present in oral specimens days before nasal. Detection and initiation of infection-control practices may therefore be delayed when nasal-swab rapid tests are used, resulting in greater transmission to contacts. We assessed whether index cases first identified by rapid nasal-swab COVID-19 tests had more transmission to household contacts than index cases who used other test types (tests with higher analytical sensitivity and/or non-nasal specimen types). In this observational cohort study, 370 individuals from 85 households with a recent COVID-19 case were screened at least daily by RT-qPCR on one or more self-collected upper-respiratory specimen types. A two-level random intercept model was used to assess the association between the infection outcome of household contacts and each covariable (household size, race/ethnicity, age, vaccination status, viral variant, infection-control practices, and whether a rapid nasal-swab test was used to initially identify the household index case). Transmission was quantified by adjusted secondary attack rates (aSAR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR). An aSAR of 53.6% (95% CI 38.8-68.3%) was observed among households where the index case first tested positive by a rapid nasal-swab COVID-19 test, which was significantly higher than the aSAR for households where the index case utilized another test type (27.2% 95% CI 19.5-35.0%, P = 0.003 pairwise comparisons of predictive margins). We observed an aOR of 4.90 (95% CI 1.65-14.56) for transmission to household contacts when a nasal-swab rapid test was used to identify the index case, compared to other test types. Use of nasal-swab rapid COVID-19 tests for initial detection of infection and initiation of infection control may be less effective at limiting transmission to household contacts than other test types.

COVID-19 Risk by Workers' Occupation and Industry in the United States, 2020‒2021

Objectives. To assess the risk of COVID-19 by occupation and industry in the United States. Methods. Using the 2020-2021 National Health Interview Survey, we estimated the risk of having had a diagnosis of COVID-19 by workers' industry and occupation, with and without adjustment for confounders. We also examined COVID-19 period prevalence by the number of workers in a household. Results. Relative to workers in other industries and occupations, those in the industry "health care and social assistance" (adjusted prevalence ratio = 1.23; 95% confidence interval = 1.11, 1.37), or in the occupations "health practitioners and technical," "health care support," or "protective services" had elevated risks of COVID-19. However, compared with nonworkers, workers in 12 of 21 industries and 11 of 23 occupations (e.g., manufacturing, food preparation, and sales) were at elevated risk. COVID-19 prevalence rose with each additional worker in a household. Conclusions. Workers in several industries and occupations with public-facing roles and adults in households with multiple workers had elevated risk of COVID-19. Public Health Implications. Stronger workplace protections, paid sick leave, and better health care access might mitigate working families' risks from this and future pandemics. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print April 13, 2023:e1-e10. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307249).

Understanding Australian Government Risk Communication Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Sociodemographics, Risk Attitudes and Media Consumption

Effective risk communication is essential for government and health authorities to effectively manage public health during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the factors that influence people's perceptions of crisis-related risk messages is critical to identify gaps and inequalities in population risk communication. Using a longitudinal survey of a representative adult sample, we examined risk communication about COVID-19 during April-June 2020 in Australia across sociodemographic groups especially the at-risk groups, accounting for and exploring the effects of risk attitudes and media engagement. Our findings showed that individuals who were younger, more left-wing, more risk-tolerant, and had a current or a history of mental disorders perceived risk communication of the Australian Government to be lower quality. On the other hand, greater consumption of information from televisions was found to be associated with more positive attitudes toward government risk communication. Our results also revealed the importance of effective and high-quality risk communication in gaining the public endorsement of various public health directions. We discuss the implications of results in terms of the development of effective public communications that lead to health-protective behaviors and effectively scaffold public understanding of risk.

Healthcare Workers’ Worries and Monkeypox Vaccine Advocacy during the First Month of the WHO Monkeypox Alert: Cross-Sectional Survey in Saudi Arabia

Background: Monkeypox virus re-surged in May 2022 as a new potential global health threat, with outbreaks bursting in multiple countries across different continents. This study was conducted in Saudi Arabia during the first month following the WHO announcement of the Monkeypox outbreak, to assess healthcare workers (HCWs) perceptions of, worries concerning, and vaccine acceptance for, Monkeypox, in light of the resolving COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted between 27 May and 10 June 2022, in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected on: HCWs’ sociodemographic and job-related characteristics; COVID-19 infection status; and worries concerning Monkeypox, compared to COVID-19 and its sources; as well as their perceptions and awareness of, and advocacy for, supporting Monkeypox vaccination. Results: A total of 1130 HCWs completed the survey, of which 41.6% have already developed COVID-19. However, 56.5% were more concerned about COVID-19 compared to Monkeypox, while the rest were more worried about Monkeypox disease. The main cause for concern among 68.8% of the participants was the development of another worldwide pandemic, post-COVID-19, followed by their concern of either themselves or their families contracting the infection (49.6%). Most HCWs (60%) rated their level of self-awareness of Monkeypox disease as moderate to high. Males, and those who had previously developed COVID-19, were significantly less likely to worry about Monkeypox. The worry about Monkeypox developing into a pandemic, and the perception of Monkeypox being a severe disease, correlated significantly positively with the odds of high worry concerning the disease. The major predictors of participants’ advocacy for vaccination against Monkeypox disease were: those who had developed COVID-19 previously; and those who supported tighter infection control measures (than those currently used) to combat the disease. A total of 74.2% of the surveyed HCWs perceived that they needed to read more about Monkeypox disease. Conclusions: Approximately half of the HCWs in this study were more concerned about Monkeypox disease than COVID-19, particularly regarding its possible progression into a new pandemic, during the first month following the WHO’s Monkeypox international alert. In addition, the majority of participants were in favor of applying tighter infection prevention measures to combat the disease. The current study highlights areas requiring attention for healthcare administrators regarding HCWs’ perceptions and preparedness for Monkeypox, especially in the event of a local or international pandemic.