Testing, infection and complication rates of COVID-19 among people with a recent history of homelessness in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study

Hospitalizations for COVID-19 Among US People Experiencing Incarceration or Homelessness

IMPORTANCE

People experiencing incarceration (PEI) and people experiencing homelessness (PEH) have an increased risk of COVID-19 exposure from congregate living, but data on their hospitalization course compared with that of the general population are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare COVID-19 hospitalizations for PEI and PEH with hospitalizations among the general population.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional analysis used data from the Premier Healthcare Database on 3415 PEI and 9434 PEH who were evaluated in the emergency department or were hospitalized in more than 800 US hospitals for COVID-19 from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Incarceration or homelessness.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Hospitalization proportions were calculated. and outcomes (intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV], mortality, length of stay, and readmissions) among PEI and PEH were compared with outcomes for all patients with COVID-19 (not PEI or PEH). Multivariable regression was used to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

In total, 3415 PEI (2952 men [86.4%]; mean [SD] age, 50.8 [15.7] years) and 9434 PEH (6776 men [71.8%]; mean [SD] age, 50.1 [14.5] years) were evaluated in the emergency department for COVID-19 and were hospitalized more often (2170 of 3415 [63.5%] PEI; 6088 of 9434 [64.5%] PEH) than the general population (624 470 of 1 257 250 [49.7%]) (P < .001). Both PEI and PEH hospitalized for COVID-19 were more likely to be younger, male, and non-Hispanic Black than the general population. Hospitalized PEI had a higher frequency of IMV (410 [18.9%]; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30) and mortality (308 [14.2%]; aRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.47) than the general population (IMV, 88 897 [14.2%]; mortality, 84 725 [13.6%]). Hospitalized PEH had a lower frequency of IMV (606 [10.0%]; aRR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58-0.70) and mortality (330 [5.4%]; aRR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.47-0.59) than the general population. Both PEI and PEH had longer mean (SD) lengths of stay (PEI, 9 [10] days; PEH, 11 [26] days) and a higher frequency of readmission (PEI, 128 [5.9%]; PEH, 519 [8.5%]) than the general population (mean [SD] length of stay, 8 [10] days; readmission, 28 493 [4.6%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, a higher frequency of COVID-19 hospitalizations for PEI and PEH underscored the importance of adhering to recommended prevention measures. Expanding medical respite may reduce hospitalizations in these disproportionately affected populations.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among people experiencing homelessness in Toronto during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

People experiencing homelessness are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study reports the point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during testing conducted at sites serving people experiencing homelessness in Toronto during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also explored the association between site characteristics and prevalence rates.

METHODS

The study included individuals who were staying at shelters, encampments, COVID-19 physical distancing sites, and drop-in and respite sites and completed outreach-based testing for SARS-CoV-2 during the period April 17 to July 31, 2020. We examined test positivity rates over time and compared them to rates in the general population of Toronto. Negative binomial regression was used to examine the relationship between each shelter-level characteristic and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates. We also compared the rates across 3 time periods (T1: April 17-April 25; T2: April 26-May 23; T3: May 24-June 25).

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 8.5% (394/4657). Site-specific rates showed great heterogeneity with infection rates ranging from 0% to 70.6%. Compared to T1, positivity rates were 0.21 times lower (95% CI: 0.06-0.75) during T2 and 0.14 times lower (95% CI: 0.04-0.44) during T3. Most cases were detected during outbreak testing (384/394 [97.5%]) rather than active case finding.

CONCLUSION

During the first wave of the pandemic, rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection at sites for people experiencing homelessness in Toronto varied significantly over time. The observation of lower rates at certain sites may be attributable to overall time trends, expansion of outreach-based testing to include sites without known outbreaks, and/or individual site characteristics.

Monitoring for COVID-19 by universal testing in a homeless shelter in Germany: a prospective feasibility cohort study

BACKGROUND

Living conditions in homeless shelters facilitate the transmission of COVID-19. Social determinants and pre-existing health conditions place homeless people at increased risk of severe disease. Described outbreaks in homeless shelters resulted in high proportions of infected residents and staff members. In addition to other infection prevention strategies, regular shelter-wide (universal) testing for COVID-19 may be valuable, depending on the level of community transmission and when resources permit.

METHODS

This was a prospective feasibility cohort study to evaluate universal testing for COVID-19 at a homeless shelter with 106 beds in Berlin, Germany. Co-researchers were recruited from the shelter staff. A PCR analysis of saliva or self-collected nasal/oral swab was performed weekly over a period of 3 weeks in July 2020. Acceptability and implementation barriers were analyzed by process evaluation using mixed methods including evaluation sheets, focus group discussion and a structured questionnaire.

RESULTS

Ninety-three out of 124 (75%) residents were approached to participate in the study. Fifty-one out of the 93 residents (54.8%) gave written informed consent; thus 41.1% (51 out of 124) of all residents were included in the study. Among these, high retention rates (88.9-93.6%) of a weekly respiratory specimen were reached, but repeated collection attempts, as well as assistance were required. Around 48 person-hours were necessary for the sample collection including the preparation of materials. A self-collected nasal/oral swab was considered easier and more hygienic to collect than a saliva specimen. No resident was tested positive by RT-PCR. Language barriers were the main reason for non-participation. Flexibility of sample collection schedules, the use of video and audio materials, and concise written information were the main recommendations of the co-researchers for future implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Voluntary universal testing for COVID-19 is feasible in homeless shelters. Universal testing of high-risk facilities will require flexible approaches, considering the level of the community transmission, the available resources, and the local recommendations. Lack of human resources and laboratory capacity may be a major barrier for implementation of universal testing, requiring adapted approaches compared to standard individual testing. Assisted self-collection of specimens and barrier free communication may facilitate implementation in homeless shelters. Program planning must consider homeless people's needs and life situation, and guarantee confidentiality and autonomy.

A population level study of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence amongst people experiencing homelessness in Wales, UK

Introduction

Prior research into the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst people experiencing homelessness (PEH) largely relates to people in communal forms of temporary accommodation in contexts where this type of accommodation remained a major part of the response to homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 amongst PEH more broadly, and in a policy and practice context that favoured self-contained accommodation, such as Wales, UK.

Objective

Describe the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 amongst PEH in Wales, UK, using routinely collected administrative data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank.

Methods

Routinely collected data were used to identify PEH in Wales between 1st March 2020 and 1st March 2021. Using SARS-CoV-2 pathology testing data, prevalence rates were generated for PEH and three comparator groups: (1) the not-homeless population; (2) a cohort 'exact matched' for age, sex, local authority and area deprivation; and (3) a matched comparison group created using these same variables and Propensity Score Matching (PSM). Three logistic regressions were run on samples containing each of the comparator groups to explore the effect of experiencing homelessness on testing positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Results

The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst PEH was 5.0%, compared to the not-homeless population at 5.6%. For the exact matched and PSM match comparator groups, prevalence was 6.9% and 6.7%, respectively. Logistic regression found that SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.9 times less likely amongst PEH compared to people not experiencing homelessness from the general population. The odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection for PEH was 0.75 and 0.73 where the 'not-homeless' comparators were from the exact match and PSM samples, respectively.

Conclusion

Our analysis revealed that a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 amongst PEH in Wales was lower than the general population. A policy response to homelessness that moved away from communal accommodation may be partly responsible for the reduced SAR-CoV-2 infection amongst PEH.

'Distant socializing,' not 'social distancing' as a public health strategy for COVID-19

Social distancing, also referred to as physical distancing, means creating a safe distance of at least two meters (six feet) between yourself and others. This is a term popularized during the COVID-19 pandemic, as it is one of the most important measures to prevent the spread of this virus. However, the term 'social distancing' can be misleading, as it may imply that individuals should stop socializing. However, socializing in a safe context (i.e. over the phone, video-chat, etc.) is especially important during this time of crisis. Therefore, in this narrative review, we suggest the term 'distant socializing' as more apt expression, to promote physical distancing measures while also highlighting the importance of maintaining social bonds. Further, articles discussing the practice, implementation, measurement, and mental health effects of physical distancing are reviewed. Physical distancing is associated with psychiatric symptoms (such as anxiety and depression), suicidal ideation, and domestic violence. Further, unemployment and job insecurity have significantly increased during COVID-19, which may exacerbate these negative mental health effects. Governments, medical institutions, and public health bodies should therefore consider increasing mental health resources both during and after the pandemic, with a specific focus on frontline workers, COVID-19 survivors, and marginalized communities.

SARS-Cov-2 prevalence, transmission, health-related outcomes and control strategies in homeless shelters: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

People experiencing homelessness (PEH) may be at risk for COVID19. We synthesised evidence on SARS-Cov-2 infection, transmission, outcomes of disease, effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI), and the effectiveness of strategies for infection prevention and control (IPC).

METHODS

Systematic review of articles, indexed in electronic databases (EMBASE, WHO-Covid19, Web of Science), institutional websites and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's live map of COVID-19 evidence, and published from December 1st, 2019, to March 3rd, 2021. Empirical papers of any study design addressing Covid-19 and health(-related) outcomes in PEH or shelters' staff were included. (PROSPERO-2020-CRD42020187033).

FINDINGS

Of 536 publications, 37 studies were included (two modelling, 31 observational, four qualitative studies). Random-effect meta-analysis yields a baseline SARS-Cov-2 prevalence of 2•32% (95% Confidence-Interval, 95%CI=1•30-3•34) in PEH and 1•55% (95%CI=0•79-2•31) in staff. In outbreaks, the pooled prevalence increases to 31•59% (95%CI=20•48-42•71) in PEH and 14•80% (95%CI=10•73-18•87) in staff. Main IPC strategies were universal rapid testing, expansion of non-congregate housing, and in-shelter measures (bed spacing, limited staff rotation, reduction in number of residents).

INTERPRETATION

32% of PEH and 15% staff are infected during outbreaks of SARS-Cov-2 in homeless shelters. Most studies were conducted in the USA. No studies were found quantifying health-related outcomes of NPI. Overview and evaluation of IPC strategies for PEH, a better understanding of disease transmission, and reliable data on PEH within Covid-19 notification systems are needed. Qualitative studies may serve to voice PEH and shelter staff experiences, and guide future evaluations and IPC strategies.

FUNDING

None.

Paid sick leave benefits among essential frontline workers serving people experiencing homelessness in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

This study examined the prevalence and factors associated with paid sick leave benefits among direct service providers who work with people experiencing homelessness.

Study design

Cross-sectional study using an online survey disseminated during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada.

Methods

Survey data from 572 direct service providers working in the homeless, supportive housing, and harm reduction service sectors were analyzed for this study. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of paid sick leave benefits.

Results

One hundred one (17.7%) participants did not have any paid sick leave benefits. In the univariate models, paid sick leave was associated with older age, greater family income, full-time work, specific employment settings (supportive housing and not emergency shelters or harm reduction programs), having a regular medical doctor, and fewer occupational impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Older age, full-time work, and non-receipt of emergency financial benefits remained statistically significant predictors in the multivariate model.

Conclusions

Although the majority of service providers working with people experiencing homelessness have some amount of paid sick leave benefits, there is a precariously employed subset of individuals who are younger and working part-time in the sector. Temporary expansion of paid sick leave and removal of waiting periods for new employees to qualify for benefits are recommended.

Social determinants of COVID-19 incidence and outcomes: A rapid review

Early reports indicate that the social determinants of health are implicated in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes. To inform the ongoing response to the pandemic, we conducted a rapid review of peer-reviewed studies to examine the social determinants of COVID-19. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from December 1, 2019 to April 27, 2020. We also searched the bibliographies of included studies, COVID-19 evidence repositories and living evidence maps, and consulted with expert colleagues internationally. We included studies identified through these supplementary sources up to June 25, 2020. We included English-language peer-reviewed quantitative studies that used primary data to describe the social determinants of COVID-19 incidence, clinical presentation, health service use and outcomes in adults with a confirmed or presumptive diagnosis of COVID-19. Two reviewers extracted data and conducted quality assessment, confirmed by a third reviewer. Forty-two studies met inclusion criteria. The strongest evidence was from three large observational studies that found associations between race or ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation and increased likelihood of COVID-19 incidence and subsequent hospitalization. Limited evidence was available on other key determinants, including occupation, educational attainment, housing status and food security. Assessing associations between sociodemographic factors and COVID-19 was limited by small samples, descriptive study designs, and the timeframe of our search. Systematic reviews of literature published subsequently are required to fully understand the magnitude of any effects and predictive utility of sociodemographic factors related to COVID-19 incidence and outcomes. PROSPERO: CRD4202017813.

Identifying gaps in COVID-19 health equity data reporting in Canada using a scorecard approach

OBJECTIVE

To assess health equity-oriented COVID-19 reporting across Canadian provinces and territories, using a scorecard approach.

METHODS

A scan was performed of provincial and territorial reporting of five data elements (cumulative totals of tests, cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and population size) across three units of aggregation (province or territory level, health regions, and local areas) (15 "overall" indicators), and for four vulnerable settings (long-term care and detention facilities, schools, and homeless shelters) and eight social markers (age, sex, immigration status, race/ethnicity, healthcare worker status, occupational sector, income, and education) (180 "equity-related" indicators) as of December 31, 2020. Per indicator, one point was awarded if case-delimited data were released, 0.7 points if only summary statistics were reported, and 0 if neither was provided. Results were presented using a scorecard approach.

RESULTS

Overall, information was more complete for cases and deaths than for tests, hospitalizations, and population size denominators needed for rate estimation. Information provided on jurisdictions and their regions, overall, tended to be more available (average score of 58%, "D") than that for equity-related indicators (average score of 17%, "F"). Only British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario provided case-delimited data, with Ontario and Alberta providing case information for local areas. No jurisdiction reported on outcomes according to patients' immigration status, race/ethnicity, income, or education. Though several provinces reported on cases in long-term care facilities, only Ontario and Quebec provided detailed information for detention facilities and schools, and only Ontario reported on cases within homeless shelters and across occupational sectors.

CONCLUSION

One year into the pandemic, socially stratified reporting for COVID-19 outcomes remains sparse in Canada. However, several "best practices" in health equity-oriented reporting were observed and set a relevant precedent for all jurisdictions to follow for this pandemic and future ones.