Search

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has required a shift of many routine primary care visits to telemedicine, potentially widening disparities in care access among vulnerable populations. In a publicly-funded HIV clinic, we aimed to evaluate a pre-visit phone-based planning intervention to address anticipated barriers to telemedicine.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patients scheduled for a phone-based HIV primary care visit at the Ward 86 HIV clinic in San Francisco from 15 April to 15 May 2020. Once reached by phone, patients were randomized to either have a structured pre-visit planning intervention to address barriers to an upcoming telemedicine visit versus a standard reminder call. The primary outcome was telemedicine visit attendance.ResultsOf 476 scheduled telemedicine visits, 280 patients were reached by a pre-visit call to offer enrollment. Patients were less likely to be reached if virally unsuppressed (odds ratio (OR) 0.11, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.03-0.48), CD4

BackgroundThere is an urgent need to understand the dynamics and risk factors driving ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission during shelter-in-place mandates.MethodsWe offered SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antibody (Abbott ARCHITECT IgG) testing, regardless of symptoms, to all residents (aged ≥4 years) and workers in a San Francisco census tract (population: 5174) at outdoor, community-mobilized events over 4 days. We estimated SARS-CoV-2 point prevalence (PCR positive) and cumulative incidence (antibody or PCR positive) in the census tract and evaluated risk factors for recent (PCR positive/antibody negative) vs prior infection (antibody positive/PCR negative). SARS-CoV-2 genome recovery and phylogenetics were used to measure viral strain diversity, establish viral lineages present, and estimate number of introductions.ResultsWe tested 3953 persons (40% Latinx; 41% White; 9% Asian/Pacific Islander; and 2% Black). Overall, 2.1% (83/3871) tested PCR positive: 95% were Latinx and 52% were asymptomatic when tested; 1.7% of census tract residents and 6.0% of workers (non-census tract residents) were PCR positive. Among 2598 tract residents, estimated point prevalence of PCR positives was 2.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2%-3.8%): 3.9% (95% CI, 2.0%-6.4%) among Latinx persons vs 0.2% (95% CI, .0-.4%) among non-Latinx persons. Estimated cumulative incidence among residents was 6.1% (95% CI, 4.0%-8.6%). Prior infections were 67% Latinx, 16% White, and 17% other ethnicities. Among recent infections, 96% were Latinx. Risk factors for recent infection were Latinx ethnicity, inability to shelter in place and maintain income, frontline service work, unemployment, and household income

BackgroundThere is an urgent need to understand the dynamics and risk factors driving ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission during shelter-in-place mandates.MethodsWe offered SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antibody (Abbott ARCHITECT IgG) testing, regardless of symptoms, to all residents (aged ≥4 years) and workers in a San Francisco census tract (population: 5174) at outdoor, community-mobilized events over 4 days. We estimated SARS-CoV-2 point prevalence (PCR positive) and cumulative incidence (antibody or PCR positive) in the census tract and evaluated risk factors for recent (PCR positive/antibody negative) vs prior infection (antibody positive/PCR negative). SARS-CoV-2 genome recovery and phylogenetics were used to measure viral strain diversity, establish viral lineages present, and estimate number of introductions.ResultsWe tested 3953 persons (40% Latinx; 41% White; 9% Asian/Pacific Islander; and 2% Black). Overall, 2.1% (83/3871) tested PCR positive: 95% were Latinx and 52% were asymptomatic when tested; 1.7% of census tract residents and 6.0% of workers (non-census tract residents) were PCR positive. Among 2598 tract residents, estimated point prevalence of PCR positives was 2.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2%-3.8%): 3.9% (95% CI, 2.0%-6.4%) among Latinx persons vs 0.2% (95% CI, .0-.4%) among non-Latinx persons. Estimated cumulative incidence among residents was 6.1% (95% CI, 4.0%-8.6%). Prior infections were 67% Latinx, 16% White, and 17% other ethnicities. Among recent infections, 96% were Latinx. Risk factors for recent infection were Latinx ethnicity, inability to shelter in place and maintain income, frontline service work, unemployment, and household income