American journal of public health最新文献

We evaluated the impact of implementing automated hepatitis C (HCV) opt-out screening in the emergency department of an urban, academic medical center with high HCV prevalence, in the context of a longstanding HCV opt-in screening model. We compared nine-month periods before and after implementation. HCV testing increased by 502%, and active HCV infection identification increased by 212%. Settings where there is great opportunity for HCV diagnosis, such as emergency department settings, should consider opt-out HCV screening models. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 29, 2024:e1-e4. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307783).

Objectives. To determine whether geographic prioritization of limited COVID-19 vaccine supply was effective for reducing geographic disparities in case rates. Methods. Rhode Island allocated a portion of the initial COVID-19 vaccine supply to residents of Central Falls, a community already affected by structural policies and inadequate systems that perpetuate health inequities and experiencing disproportionately high COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. The policy was implemented with a culturally and linguistically appropriate community engagement plan and was intended to reduce observed disparities. Using a Bayesian causal analysis with population surveillance data, we evaluated the impact of this prioritization policy on recorded cases over the subsequent 16 weeks. Results. Early geographic prioritization of Central Falls accelerated vaccine uptake, averting an estimated 520 cases (95% confidence interval = 22, 1418) over 16 weeks and reducing cases by approximately 34% during this period (520 averted vs 1519 expected without early prioritization). Conclusions. Early geographic prioritization increased vaccine uptake and reduced cases in Central Falls, thereby reducing geographic disparities. Public Health Implications. Public health institutions should consider geographic prioritization of limited vaccine supply to reduce geographic disparities in case rates. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 28, 2024:e1-e10. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307741).

The Communities Organizing to Promote Equity (COPE) Project was implemented in 20 counties across Kansas to build capacity to address health equity by forming local health equity action teams (LHEATS), hiring and training community health workers, facilitating state-wide learning collaboratives, and tailoring communication strategies. We conducted interviews and focus groups with project stakeholders who identified pragmatic recommendations related to LHEAT formation and leadership, establishing trust, nurturing autonomy, and optimizing impact. Insights can improve future community-based health equity efforts. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 28, 2024:e1-e5. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307802).

Objectives. To describe how an innovative, community-engaged survey illuminated previously unmeasured pandemic inequities and informed health equity investments. Methods. The methodological approach of Massachusetts' COVID-19 Community Impact Survey, a cross-sectional online survey, was driven by key health equity principles: prioritizing community engagement, gathering granular and intersectional data, capturing root causes, elevating community voices, expediting analysis for timeliness, and creating data-to-action pathways. Data collection was deployed statewide in 11 languages from 2020 to 2021. Results. The embedded equity principles resulted in a rich data set and enabled analyses of populations previously undescribed. The final sample included 33 800 respondents including unprecedented numbers of populations underrepresented in traditional data sources. Analyses indicated that pandemic impacts related to basic needs, discrimination, health care access, workplace protections, employment, and mental health disproportionately affected these priority populations, which included Asian American/Pacific Islanders and parents. Conclusions. Equity-centered data approaches allow for analyses of populations previously invisible in surveillance data, enable more equitable public health action, and are both possible and necessary to deploy in state health departments. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 28, 2024:e1-e11. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307800).

This study examines the pivotal role of COVID-19 testing in mitigating disease spread, particularly in underserved rural communities facing health care access challenges. The Southern Nevada Health District successfully implemented a vending program in Clark County, offering free COVID-19 antigen test kits. Strategically located based on health equity indices and featuring a user-friendly, multilingual registration process, these machines proved effective in reaching rural populations. The cost-effective model suggests potential adoption for broader public health interventions and services in other regions. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 28, 2024:e1-e4. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307718).

In 2021, the Maricopa County Department of Public Health in Maricopa County, Arizona, modified its subcontracting process to engage more community-based organizations that serve populations disproportionately affected by COVID-19. The change allowed subrecipients to receive 40% of grant funding up front. An evaluation found that providing up-front funding engaged smaller-budget organizations. However, factors such as administrative requirements and formal policies associated with government partnerships limited the perceived benefits of up-front funding. These findings are relevant for entities seeking to improve access to federal funding. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 28, 2024:e1-e4. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307740).

Objectives. To compare the incidence, case-hospitalization rates, and vaccination rates of COVID-19 between people experiencing sheltered homelessness (PESH) and the broader community in Chicago, Illinois, and describe the impact of a whole community approach to disease mitigation during the public health emergency. Methods. Incidence of COVID-19 among PESH was compared with community-wide incidence using case-based surveillance data from March 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023. Seven-day rolling means of COVID-19 incidence were assessed for the overall study period and for each of 6 distinct waves of COVID-19 transmission. Results. A total of 774 009 cases of COVID-19 were detected: 2579 among PESH and 771 430 in the broader community. Incidence and hospitalization rates per 100 000 in PESH were more than 5 times higher (99.84 vs 13.94 and 16.88 vs 2.14) than the community at large in wave 1 (March 1, 2020-October 3, 2020). This difference decreased through wave 3 (March 7, 2021-June 26, 2021), with PESH having a lower incidence rate per 100 000 than the wider community (8.02 vs 13.03). Incidence and hospitalization of PESH rose again to rates higher than the broader community in waves 4 through 6 but never returned to wave 1 levels. Throughout the study period, COVID-19 incidence among PESH was 2.88 times higher than that of the community (70.90 vs 24.65), and hospitalization was 4.56 times higher among PESH (7.51 vs 1.65). Conclusions. Our findings suggest that whole-community approaches can minimize disparities in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission between vulnerable populations and the broader community, and reinforce the benefits of a shared approach that include multiple partners when addressing public health emergencies in special populations. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 28, 2024:e1-e9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307801).