Gretchen Wilde

Underserved communities have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Project Promoting Engagement and COVID-19 Testing for Health (PEACH) study was designed to understand the attitudes, beliefs, and infrastructure associated with COVID-19 risk, testing, and prevention behaviors in people living with, caring for, or at risk for type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this joint community–academic partnered manuscript is to share lessons learned for maintaining community partnerships through the challenging times of a pandemic. New and existing community partners were invited to share their perceptions about the facilitators and barriers of partnering with academia during the COVID-19 public health crisis. Key facilitators included those partners felt heard and their input valued. And the changing nature and demands in response to the pandemic on the partners’ responsibilities were among the key challenges. Successful maintenance of the partnerships required flexibility, creativity, and a willingness to adapt engagement as community partners responded to the needs of their communities.

Background: Innovative laboratory testing approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response are needed to conduct research to establish estimates of prevalence and incidence. Self-specimen collection methods have been successfully used in HIV and sexually transmitted infection research and can provide a feasible opportunity to scale up SARS-CoV-2 testing for research purposes. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the willingness of adults to use different specimen collection modalities for themselves and children as part of a COVID-19 research study. Methods: Between March 27 and April 1, 2020, we recruited 1435 adults aged 18 years or older though social media advertisements. Participants completed a survey that included 5-point Likert scale items stating how willing they were to use the following specimen collection testing modalities as part of a research study: home collection of a saliva sample, home collection of a throat swab, home finger-prick blood collection, drive-through site throat swab, clinic throat swab, and clinic blood collection. Additionally, participants indicated how the availability of home-based collection methods would impact their willingness to participate compared to drive-through and clinic-based specimen collection. We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman rank correlations to assess if willingness to use each testing modality differed by demographic variables and characteristics of interest. We compared the overall willingness to use each testing modality and estimated effect sizes with Cohen d. Results: We analyzed responses from 1435 participants with a median age of 40.0 (SD=18.2) years and over half of which were female (761/1435, 53.0%). Most participants agreed or strongly agreed that they would be willing to use specimens self-collected at home to participate in research, including willingness to collect a saliva sample (1259/1435, 87.7%) or a throat swab (1191/1435, 83.1%). Willingness to collect a throat swab sample was lower in both a drive-through setting (64%) and clinic setting (53%). Overall, 69.0% (990/1435) of participants said they would be more likely to participate in a research study if they could provide a saliva sample or throat swab at home compared to going to a drive-through site; only 4.4% (63/1435) of participants said they would be less likely to participate using self-collected samples. For each specimen collection modality, willingness to collect specimens from children for research was lower than willingness to use on oneself, but the ranked order of modalities was similar. Conclusions: Most participants were willing to participate in a COVID-19 research study that involves laboratory testing; however, there was a strong preference for home specimen collection procedures over drive-through or clinic-based testing. To increase participation and minimize bias, epidemiologic research studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response should consider home specimen collection methods.

Background: Existing health disparities based on race and ethnicity in the United States are contributing to disparities in morbidity and mortality during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. We conducted an online survey of American adults to assess similarities and differences by race and ethnicity with respect to COVID-19 symptoms, estimates of the extent of the pandemic, knowledge of control measures, and stigma. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe similarities and differences in COVID-19 symptoms, knowledge, and beliefs by race and ethnicity among adults in the United States. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey from March 27, 2020 through April 1, 2020. Participants were recruited on social media platforms and completed the survey on a secure web-based survey platform. We used chi-square tests to compare characteristics related to COVID-19 by race and ethnicity. Statistical tests were corrected using the Holm Bonferroni correction to account for multiple comparisons. Results: A total of 1435 participants completed the survey; 52 (3.6%) were Asian, 158 (11.0%) were non-Hispanic Black, 548 (38.2%) were Hispanic, 587 (40.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and 90 (6.3%) identified as other or multiple races. Only one symptom (sore throat) was found to be different based on race and ethnicity (P=.003); this symptom was less frequently reported by Asian (3/52, 5.8%), non-Hispanic Black (9/158, 5.7%), and other/multiple race (8/90, 8.9%) participants compared to those who were Hispanic (99/548, 18.1%) or non-Hispanic White (95/587, 16.2%). Non-Hispanic White and Asian participants were more likely to estimate that the number of current cases was at least 100,000 (P=.004) and were more likely to answer all 14 COVID-19 knowledge scale questions correctly (Asian participants, 13/52, 25.0%; non-Hispanic White participants, 180/587, 30.7%) compared to Hispanic (108/548, 19.7%) and non-Hispanic Black (25/158, 15.8%) participants. Conclusions: We observed differences with respect to knowledge of appropriate methods to prevent infection by the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Deficits in knowledge of proper control methods may further exacerbate existing race/ethnicity disparities. Additional research is needed to identify trusted sources of information in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black communities and create effective messaging to disseminate correct COVID-19 prevention and treatment information.

BACKGROUND Existing health disparities based on race and ethnicity in the United States are contributing to disparities in morbidity and mortality during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. We conducted an online survey of American adults to assess similarities and differences by race and ethnicity with respect to COVID-19 symptoms, estimates of the extent of the pandemic, knowledge of control measures, and stigma. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to describe similarities and differences in COVID-19 symptoms, knowledge, and beliefs by race and ethnicity among adults in the United States. METHODS We conducted a cross-sectional survey from March 27, 2020 through April 1, 2020. Participants were recruited on social media platforms and completed the survey on a secure web-based survey platform. We used chi-square tests to compare characteristics related to COVID-19 by race and ethnicity. Statistical tests were corrected using the Holm Bonferroni correction to account for multiple comparisons. RESULTS A total of 1435 participants completed the survey; 52 (3.6%) were Asian, 158 (11.0%) were non-Hispanic Black, 548 (38.2%) were Hispanic, 587 (40.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and 90 (6.3%) identified as other or multiple races. Only one symptom (sore throat) was found to be different based on race and ethnicity (P=.003); this symptom was less frequently reported by Asian (3/52, 5.8%), non-Hispanic Black (9/158, 5.7%), and other/multiple race (8/90, 8.9%) participants compared to those who were Hispanic (99/548, 18.1%) or non-Hispanic White (95/587, 16.2%). Non-Hispanic White and Asian participants were more likely to estimate that the number of current cases was at least 100,000 (P=.004) and were more likely to answer all 14 COVID-19 knowledge scale questions correctly (Asian participants, 13/52, 25.0%; non-Hispanic White participants, 180/587, 30.7%) compared to Hispanic (108/548, 19.7%) and non-Hispanic Black (25/158, 15.8%) participants. CONCLUSIONS We observed differences with respect to knowledge of appropriate methods to prevent infection by the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Deficits in knowledge of proper control methods may further exacerbate existing race/ethnicity disparities. Additional research is needed to identify trusted sources of information in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black communities and create effective messaging to disseminate correct COVID-19 prevention and treatment information.

BACKGROUND Innovative laboratory testing approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response are needed to conduct research to establish estimates of prevalence and incidence. Self-specimen collection methods have been successfully used in HIV and sexually transmitted infection research and can provide a feasible opportunity to scale up SARS-CoV-2 testing for research purposes. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the willingness of adults to use different specimen collection modalities for themselves and children as part of a COVID-19 research study. METHODS Between March 27 and April 1, 2020, we recruited 1435 adults aged 18 years or older though social media advertisements. Participants completed a survey that included 5-point Likert scale items stating how willing they were to use the following specimen collection testing modalities as part of a research study: home collection of a saliva sample, home collection of a throat swab, home finger-prick blood collection, drive-through site throat swab, clinic throat swab, and clinic blood collection. Additionally, participants indicated how the availability of home-based collection methods would impact their willingness to participate compared to drive-through and clinic-based specimen collection. We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman rank correlations to assess if willingness to use each testing modality differed by demographic variables and characteristics of interest. We compared the overall willingness to use each testing modality and estimated effect sizes with Cohen d. RESULTS We analyzed responses from 1435 participants with a median age of 40.0 (SD=18.2) years and over half of which were female (761/1435, 53.0%). Most participants agreed or strongly agreed that they would be willing to use specimens self-collected at home to participate in research, including willingness to collect a saliva sample (1259/1435, 87.7%) or a throat swab (1191/1435, 83.1%). Willingness to collect a throat swab sample was lower in both a drive-through setting (64%) and clinic setting (53%). Overall, 69.0% (990/1435) of participants said they would be more likely to participate in a research study if they could provide a saliva sample or throat swab at home compared to going to a drive-through site; only 4.4% (63/1435) of participants said they would be less likely to participate using self-collected samples. For each specimen collection modality, willingness to collect specimens from children for research was lower than willingness to use on oneself, but the ranked order of modalities was similar. CONCLUSIONS Most participants were willing to participate in a COVID-19 research study that involves laboratory testing; however, there was a strong preference for home specimen collection procedures over drive-through or clinic-based testing. To increase participation and minimize bias, epidemiologic research studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response should consider home specimen collection methods.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly efficacious for preventing HIV but has not yet been brought to scale among at-risk persons. In several clinical trials in urban areas, technology-based interventions have shown a positive impact on PrEP adherence. In rural and small-town areas in the United States, which often do not have geographically proximal access to PrEP providers, additional support may be needed. This may be particularly true for younger persons who are more likely to face multiple barriers to accessing PrEP services. Home-based care, accomplished through a tailored mobile phone app, specimen self-collection (SSC), and interactive video consultations, could increase both PrEP initiation and persistence in care. The goal of this study is to assess the initiation and persistence in PrEP care for those randomized to a home-care intervention (electronic PrEP, ePrEP) relative to those assigned to the standard of care (control) condition. We will conduct additional assessments, including quantitative and qualitative analyses, to contextualize trial results and facilitate scale-up. This 2-arm, randomized controlled trial will enroll young men who have sex with men (YMSM) aged between 18 and 24 years from rural areas of Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina. The trial will seek to recruit a diverse sample, targeting 50% participation among highly impacted groups of black or Latino men who have sex with men. Intervention participants will receive a study app that incorporates a messaging platform, a scheduling and milestone-based tracking system for PrEP care progress, electronic behavioral surveys, and interactive video consultations with a clinician. Complemented by SSC kits mailed to laboratories for standard PrEP-related monitoring, the ePrEP system will allow participants to access PrEP care without leaving their homes. YMSM randomized to the control condition will receive a listing of nearest local PrEP providers to receive standard PrEP care. Both groups will complete quarterly electronic surveys. The primary outcome, assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomization, will be the difference in the proportion of intervention versus control participants that achieve protective levels of the active metabolite of oral PrEP (tenofovir diphosphate in dried blood spots). Enrollment will begin in May 2019, with study completion in 2022. This trial will determine whether home PrEP care provided through an app-based platform is an efficacious means of expanding access to PrEP care for a diverse group of YMSM in rural and small-town areas of the United States. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03729570; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03729570 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/78RE2Qizf). PRR1-10.2196/13982.