Annals of epidemiology · 2021
Assessment of contact tracing for COVID-19 among people experiencing homelessness, Salt Lake County Health Department, March-May 2020.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fields Victoria L, Kiphibane Tair, Eason Jeffrey T, Hafoka Siosaia F, Lopez Adriana S, Schwartz Amy, Henry Ankita, Tran Cuc H, Tate Jacqueline E, Kirking Hannah L, Laws Rebecca L, Venkatappa Thara, Mosites Emily, Montgomery Martha P
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Contact tracing is intended to reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but it is difficult to conduct among people who live in congregate settings, including people experiencing homelessness (PEH). This analysis compares person-based contact tracing among two populations in Salt Lake County, Utah, from March-May 2020.
METHODS: All laboratory-confirmed positive cases among PEH (n = 169) and documented in Utah's surveillance system were included in this analysis. The general population comparison group (n = 163) were systematically selected from all laboratory-confirmed cases identified during the same period.
RESULTS: Ninety-three PEH cases (55%) were interviewed compared to 163 (100%) cases among the general population (P < .0001). PEH were more likely to be lost to follow-up at end of isolation (14.2%) versus the general population (0%; P-value < .0001) and provided fewer contacts per case (0.3) than the general population (4.7) (P-value < .0001). Contacts of PEH were more often unreachable (13.0% vs. 7.1%; P-value < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that contact tracing among PEH should include a location-based approach, along with a person-based approach when resources allow, due to challenges in identifying, locating, and reaching cases among PEH and their contacts through person-based contact tracing efforts alone.
METHODS: All laboratory-confirmed positive cases among PEH (n = 169) and documented in Utah's surveillance system were included in this analysis. The general population comparison group (n = 163) were systematically selected from all laboratory-confirmed cases identified during the same period.
RESULTS: Ninety-three PEH cases (55%) were interviewed compared to 163 (100%) cases among the general population (P < .0001). PEH were more likely to be lost to follow-up at end of isolation (14.2%) versus the general population (0%; P-value < .0001) and provided fewer contacts per case (0.3) than the general population (4.7) (P-value < .0001). Contacts of PEH were more often unreachable (13.0% vs. 7.1%; P-value < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that contact tracing among PEH should include a location-based approach, along with a person-based approach when resources allow, due to challenges in identifying, locating, and reaching cases among PEH and their contacts through person-based contact tracing efforts alone.