Public Health Reports®

Estimating the prevalence of drug use in the general population is important given its potential health consequences but is challenging. Self-reported surveys on drug use have inherent limitations that underestimate drug use. We evaluated the performance of linking urine drug testing with a local, representative health examination survey in estimating the prevalence of drug use in New York City (NYC).

We used urine drug testing from the NYC Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NYC HANES) to estimate the prevalence of drug use (benzodiazepines, cocaine, heroin, and opioid analgesics) among the study sample and compare the findings with self-reported responses to questions about past–12-month drug use from the same survey.

Of 1527 respondents to NYC HANES, urine drug testing was performed on 1297 (84.9%) participants who provided urine and consented to future studies. Self-reported responses gave past–12-month weighted estimates for heroin, cocaine, or any prescription drug misuse of 13.8% (95% CI, 11.6%-16.3%), for prescription drug misuse of 9.9% (95% CI, 8.1%-12.1%), and for heroin or cocaine use of 6.1% (95% CI, 4.7%-7.9%). Urine drug testing gave past–12-month weighted estimates for any drug use of 4.3% (95% CI, 3.0%-6.0%), for use of any prescription drug of 2.8% (95% CI, 1.9%-4.1%), and for heroin or cocaine use of 2.0% (95% CI, 1.2%-3.6%).

Urine drug testing provided underestimates for the prevalence of drug use at a population level compared with self-report. Researchers should use other methods to estimate the prevalence of drug use on a population level.

The Veterans Health Administration established comprehensive women’s health clinics (CWHCs) to provide coordinated, high-quality primary care to women veterans. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is prevalent among women using these clinics. The Veterans Health Administration recommends screening women for IPV, yet screening uptake is low in CWHCs nationwide. We describe a multisite quality improvement initiative to enhance the adoption of IPV screening practices in the Veterans Health Administration’s CWHCs.

This quality improvement initiative, implemented in 2017-2018, included 4 steps in which we (1) conducted a baseline survey of screening practices at CWHCs throughout the United States; (2) selected and tailored evidence-based implementation strategies based on identified barriers and facilitators; (3) deployed multicomponent implementation support, targeting low-adopting facilities; and (4) conducted a follow-up survey to evaluate changes in IPV screening practices from baseline (winter 2017) to 1-year follow-up (winter 2018) using quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Responders from 62 CWHC sites provided information on IPV screening practices and barriers; 42 low-adopting sites were targeted for implementation support. At follow-up, responders provided information on IPV screening practices, perceived usefulness of implementation support strategies, and continued barriers. Among sites that responded to both surveys (n = 47), the number of sites that implemented recommended screening practices increased by 66.7%, from 15 at baseline to 25 at follow-up (P = .02). Emergent themes reflected barriers and facilitators for IPV screening implementation.

Improvement in IPV screening practices in CWHCs is a pivotal step toward enhancing care for women. Yet, even with numerous implementation supports, barriers to adoption persist at many sites. Findings on modifiable barriers and unique facilitators can inform next steps for increasing screening uptake.

The number of congenital syphilis (CS) cases in Arizona quadrupled from an average of 14 cases annually before 2017 to 61 cases in 2018, and a statewide outbreak was declared. The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) analyzed statewide surveillance data to identify missed opportunities for prevention and collaborated with the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) to inform response activities.

ADHS developed a metric to identify missed opportunities for CS prevention during pregnancy by using medical records, vital records, and case investigation notes for all mothers of infants born with CS from January 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018. AHCCCS conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to calculate the effect of increasing perinatal syphilis screening.

Arizona had 57 cases of CS during the study period, of which 17 (29.8%) could have been prevented through third-trimester screening for women who were in prenatal care but screened late (n = 9), were infected after their first prenatal visit screen (n = 7), or were reinfected after an initial reactive syphilis test and appropriate treatment and not rescreened (n = 1). The estimated net cost of combining the additional primary (screening) and secondary (treatment) costs of a third-trimester screen for all pregnant AHCCCS members and the estimated total per-year savings of all newborn hospitalizations was $527.

Third-trimester syphilis screening could prevent CS in regions where syphilis transmission is high. Partnering with health insurance agencies to evaluate the cost effectiveness of screening recommendations may improve the accuracy of the estimate of the potential cost savings by using insurance agency–specific data for the population at risk for CS.

Having health insurance is associated with improvements in health care access and use, health behaviors, and outcomes. We examined changes in health insurance coverage for California women before, during, and after pregnancy after implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

We used data from the 2011-2017 California Maternal and Infant Health Assessment, an annual representative survey of women sampled from birth certificates (n = 47 487). We examined health insurance coverage at baseline before ACA implementation (2011-2013) and in each survey year from 2014 to 2017 for 3 periods (before, during, and after pregnancy). We calculated prevalence ratios to evaluate changes in health insurance coverage, adjusting for changes in demographic characteristics. Few women were uninsured during pregnancy before implementation of the ACA; therefore, analyses focused on health insurance before pregnancy and postpartum.

Before ACA implementation, 24.4% of women reported being uninsured before pregnancy, which decreased to 10.1% in 2017. About 17% of women reported being uninsured postpartum before ACA implementation, and this percentage decreased to 7.5% in 2017. ACA implementation resulted in a >50% adjusted decline in the likelihood of being uninsured before pregnancy or postpartum, primarily because of substantial increases in Medicaid coverage.

ACA implementation resulted in a dramatic reduction in mothers in California who were uninsured before and after pregnancy. Medicaid expansion played a major role in this improvement.

Childcare is an important setting for nutrition; nearly half of young children in the United States participate in licensed childcare, where they consume up to two-thirds of their daily dietary intake. We compared state regulations for childcare with best practices to support breastfeeding and healthy beverage provision.

We reviewed regulations for childcare centers (centers) and family childcare homes (homes) in effect May–July 2016 and rated all 50 states for inclusion (1 = not included, 2 = partially included, 3 = fully included) of 12 breastfeeding and beverage best practices. We calculated average ratings for 6 practices specific to infants aged 0-11 months, 6 practices specific to children aged 1-6 years, and all 12 practices, by state and across all states. We assessed significant differences between centers and homes for each best practice by using McNemar–Bowker tests for symmetry, and we assessed differences across states by using paired student t tests.

States included best practices in regulations for centers more often than for homes. Average ratings (standard deviations) in regulations across all states were significantly higher in centers than in homes for infant best practices (2.1 [0.5] vs 1.8 [0.5], P < .001), child best practices (2.1 [0.6] vs 1.8 [0.6], P = .002), and all 12 best practices combined (2.1 [0.5] vs 1.8 [0.6], P < .001).

Although best practices were more consistently included in regulations for centers than for homes, many state childcare regulations did not include best practices to support breastfeeding and the provision of healthy beverages. Findings can be used to inform efforts to improve regulations and to reduce differences between centers and homes.

Widespread global transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), continues. Many questions remain about asymptomatic or atypical infections and transmission dynamics. We used comprehensive contact tracing of the first 2 confirmed patients in Illinois with COVID-19 and serologic SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing to determine whether contacts had evidence of undetected COVID-19.

Contacts were eligible for serologic follow-up if previously tested for COVID-19 during an initial investigation or had greater-risk exposures. Contacts completed a standardized questionnaire during the initial investigation. We classified exposure risk as high, medium, or low based on interactions with 2 index patients and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Serologic testing used a SARS-CoV-2 spike enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay on serum specimens collected from participants approximately 6 weeks after initial exposure to either index patient. The 2 index patients provided serum specimens throughout their illness. We collected data on demographic, exposure, and epidemiologic characteristics.

Of 347 contacts, 110 were eligible for serologic follow-up; 59 (17% of all contacts) enrolled. Of these, 53 (90%) were health care personnel and 6 (10%) were community contacts. Seventeen (29%) reported high-risk exposures, 15 (25%) medium-risk, and 27 (46%) low-risk. No participant had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The 2 index patients had antibodies detected at dilutions >1:6400 within 4 weeks after symptom onset.

In serologic follow-up of the first 2 known patients in Illinois with COVID-19, we found no secondary transmission among tested contacts. Lack of seroconversion among these contacts adds to our understanding of conditions (ie, use of PPE) under which SARS-CoV-2 infections might not result in transmission and demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is a useful tool to verify epidemiologic findings.

An understanding of mental health symptoms during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is critical to ensure that health policies adequately address the mental health needs of people in the United States. The objective of this study was to examine mental health symptoms among US adults in an early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We conducted a cross-sectional study in late March 2020 with a national sample of 963 US adults using an online research platform. Participants self-reported state of residence, psychosocial characteristics, and levels of anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive function, and fatigue in the context of COVID-19 using validated patient-reported outcomes scales in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System measures. We used analysis of variance and multivariate linear regression to evaluate correlates of mental health symptoms.

Overall, participants reported high levels of anxiety (mean [SD], 57.2 [9.3]) and depression (mean [SD], 54.2 [9.5]). Levels of anger, anxiety, cognitive function, depression, and fatigue were significantly higher among the Millennial Generation and Generation X (vs Baby Boomers), those with not enough or enough (vs more than enough) financial resources, females vs males), those with self-reported disability (vs no self-reported disability), and those with inadequate (vs adequate) health literacy. In adjusted models, being in Generation X and the Millennial Generation (vs Baby Boomer), having not enough or enough vs more than enough) financial resources, and having inadequate (vs adequate) health literacy were most strongly correlated with worse mental health symptoms.

Results suggest that mental health symptoms during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic were prevalent nationally, regardless of state of residence and especially among young, psychosocially vulnerable groups.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulting from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 began to affect the United States in early 2020. This study aimed to assess the US public’s initial understanding about the disease and virus to inform public health communication efforts.

We conducted a survey of US households from February 28 through March 2, 2020, using a probability-based web-panel survey of 1021 US residents. To assess knowledge about COVID-19, we asked respondents a series of 16 true/false questions. We conducted descriptive statistics and linear regression analyses to examine differences in knowledge scores based on demographic and background characteristics.

Knowledge about COVID-19 and the virus was relatively low overall at the beginning of the outbreak, with average scores of 62% on a 16-item knowledge index (ie, answers for 6 of the 16 questions were incorrect or unknown). Knowledge was especially low among people who had low education and income levels, were unemployed, were Hispanic, were non-Hispanic Black, were aged 18-24 and 35-49, indicated having “other” health insurance, and had limited exposure to information about the pandemic. Non-Hispanic Black respondents were less knowledgeable about COVID-19 and the virus at every education level compared with non-Hispanic White respondents at higher education levels. Non-Hispanic Black respondents with <high school degree were the least knowledgeable of all subgroups.

The findings of our study highlight the need for widespread, ongoing public health education about the virus and COVID-19, especially among certain populations. It is critical to effectively translate complex clinical and epidemiologic evidence into messages that most people can understand and act on during a pandemic, that combat misinformation about the virus and COVID-19, and that consider low levels of health literacy.

Immigrants are believed to be at high risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A leading suspected risk factor is their role in the essential workforce. We aimed to describe COVID-19–related risk factors among Bhutanese and Burmese refugees in the United States.

We administered an anonymous online survey in May 2020 among community leaders of Bhutanese and Burmese refugees. Using a snowball sampling strategy, we invited community leaders to complete the survey and share the link with others who met inclusion criteria (English proficient, aged ≥18, currently living in the United States). We compared respondents with and without recent COVID-19 and identified risk factors for infection.

Of 218 refugees in 23 states who completed the survey from May 15 through June 1, 2020, fifteen (6.9%) reported infection with COVID-19. Being an essential worker during the pandemic (odds ratio [OR] = 5.25; 95% CI, 1.21-22.78), having an infected family member (OR = 26.92; 95% CI, 5.19-139.75), and being female (OR = 5.63; 95% CI, 1.14-27.82) were risk factors for infection. Among 33 infected family members, 23 (69.7%) were essential workers.

Although we had a small snowball sample, we found that working in essential industries was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 infection among Bhutanese and Burmese refugees. We call for larger studies that include Asian immigrant subgroups, as well as immediate attention to protecting immigrant essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.