Assessment of contact tracing for COVID-19 among people experiencing homelessness, Salt Lake County Health Department, March-May 2020.

Autor: Fields VL; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: ish7@cdc.gov., Kiphibane T; Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake City, UT., Eason JT; Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake City, UT., Hafoka SF; Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake City, UT., Lopez AS; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA., Schwartz A; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA., Henry A; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA., Tran CH; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA., Tate JE; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA., Kirking HL; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA., Laws RL; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA., Venkatappa T; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA., Mosites E; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA., Montgomery MP; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Annals of epidemiology [Ann Epidemiol] 2021 Jul; Vol. 59, pp. 50-55. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Apr 22.
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2021.04.002
Abstrakt: 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.
(Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: