Public Health Surveillance Systems and Outbreak Response: Evidence from the Field

Cover image for research topic "Public Health Surveillance Systems and Outbreak Response: Evidence from the Field"
29.1K
views
31
authors
5
articles
Editors
3
Impact
Loading...

Background: Though the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) home testing kits is increasing, individuals who use home tests are not accounted for in publicly reported COVID-19 metrics. As the pandemic and the methods for tracking cases evolve, it is critical to understand who the individuals excluded are, due to their use of home testing kits, relative to those included in the reported metrics.

Methods: Five New York State databases were linked to investigate trends in home-tested COVID-19 cases vs. laboratory-confirmed cases from November 2021 to April 2022. Frequency distributions, multivariate logistic regression adjusted odds ratios (aOR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare the characteristics of the home-tested and laboratory-tested people.

Results: Of the 591,227 confirmed COVID-19 cases interviewed, 71,531 (12%) of them underwent home tests, 515,001 (87%) underwent laboratory tests, and 5,695 (1%) underwent both home tests and laboratory tests during this period. Home-tested COVID-19 cases increased from only 1% in November 2021 to 22% in April 2022. Children aged 5–11 years with an aOR of 3.74 (95% CI: 3.53, 3.96) and adolescents aged 12–17 years with an aOR of 3.24 (95% CI: 3.07, 3.43) were more likely to undergo only home tests compared to adults aged 65 years and above. On the one hand, those who were “boosted” (aOR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.82, 1.93), those in K-12 school settings (aOR 2.33, 95% CI: 2.27, 2.40), or those who were possibly infected by a household member (aOR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.22) were more likely to report home testing instead of laboratory testing. On the other hand, individuals who were hospitalized (aOR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.06), who had underlying conditions (aOR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.87), who were pregnant (aOR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.86), and who were Hispanic (aOR 0.50: 95% CI: 0.48, 0.53), Asian (aOR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.34), or Black (aOR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.42, 047) were less likely to choose home testing over laboratory testing.

Conclusion: The percentage of individuals with confirmed COVID-19 who used only home testing kits continues to rise. People who used only home testing were less likely to be hospitalized and were those with a lower likelihood of developing a severe disease given factors such as age, vaccination status, and underlying conditions. Thus, the official COVID-19 metrics primarily reflected individuals with severe illness or the potential for severe illness. There may be racial and ethnic differences in the use of home testing vs. laboratory testing.

1,981 views
6 citations
19,353 views
3 citations
Recommended Research Topics
Frontiers Logo

Frontiers in Veterinary Science

Rabies, a long-standing One Health example – Progress, Challenges, Lessons and Visions on the way to 0 by 30
Edited by Salome Dürr, Anna Sophie Fahrion, Conrad Martin Freuling, Monique Sarah Léchenne, Marco Antonio Natal Vigilato, Sergio E. Recuenco, Thomas Müller
131.9K
views
21
articles
Frontiers Logo

Frontiers in Tropical Diseases

Surveillance and Reporting Mechanisms for (Neglected) Tropical & Infectious Diseases
Edited by Suraj Bhattarai, Sandra Laurence Lopez-Verges, Suwash Baral
13.2K
views
3
articles
Frontiers Logo

Frontiers in Tropical Diseases

The Intersection of Covid and Tropical Diseases
Edited by Edwin Michael, Emanuele Nicastri, Alfonso J. Rodriguez-Morales
13.9K
views
66
authors
7
articles
Deadline
30 Sept 2023
Submit
Frontiers Logo

Frontiers in Tropical Diseases

Digital Tools and Innovation for the Prevention and Control of Vector-borne Diseases
Edited by Jorge Abelardo Falcón-Lezama, Jorge F Mendez-Galván, Roberto Tapia-Conyer
Deadline
09 Jul 2024
Submit