Browsing by Author "Jain S"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Defining long COVID using a population-based SARS-CoV-2 survey in California.
(2024-Dec-02) Pry JM; McCullough K; Lai KW; Lim E; Mehrotra ML; Lamba K; Jain S; California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA, USA; School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA, USA; Center for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia. Electronic address: jmpry@ucdavis.edu.; California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA, USA.; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
BACKGROUND: More than four years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, understanding of SARS-CoV-2 burden and post-acute sequela of COVID (PASC), or long COVID, continues to evolve. However, prevalence estimates are disparate and uncertain. Leveraging survey responses from a large serosurveillance study, we assess prevalence estimates using five different long COVID definitions among California residents. METHODS: The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) conducted a cross-sectional survey that included questions about acute COVID-19 infection and recovery. A random selection of California households was invited to participate in a survey that included demographic information, clinical symptoms, and COVID-19 vaccination history. We assessed prevalence and predictors of long COVID among those previously testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 across different definitions using logistic regression. FINDINGS: A total of 2883 participants were included in this analysis; the majority identified as female (62.5 %), and the median age was 39 years (interquartile range: 17-55 years). We found a significant difference in long COVID prevalence across definitions with the highest prevalence observed when participants were asked about incomplete recovery (20.9 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 19.4-22.5) and the lowest prevalence was associated with severe long COVID affecting an estimated 4.9 % (95 % CI 4.1-5.7) of the participant population. Individuals that completed the primary vaccination series had significantly lower prevalence of long COVID compared to those that did not receive COVID vaccination. INTERPRETATION: There were significant differences in the estimated prevalence of long COVID across different definitions. People who experience a severe initial COVID-19 infection should be considered at a higher probability for developing long COVID. FUNDING: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity.
Mixed methods approach to examining the implementation experience of a phone-based survey for a SARS-CoV-2 test-negative case-control study in California.
(2024) Fukui N; Li SS; DeGuzman J; Myers JF; Openshaw J; Sharma A; Watt J; Lewnard JA; Jain S; Andrejko KL; Pry JM; Center for Computational Biology, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States of America.; California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA, United States of America.; Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA, United States of America.; Division of Infectious Diseases & Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America.; The Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ), Lusaka, Zambia.; College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, United States of America.; Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States of America.; University of Washington, Hans Rosling Center, Global Health, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation of a test-negative design case-control study in California during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Test-negative case-control study. METHODS: Between February 24, 2021 - February 24, 2022, a team of 34 interviewers called 38,470 Californians, enrolling 1,885 that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases) and 1,871 testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls) for 20-minute telephone survey. We estimated adjusted odds ratios for answering the phone and consenting to participate using mixed effects logistic regression. We used a web-based anonymous survey to compile interviewer experiences. RESULTS: Cases had 1.29-fold (95% CI: 1.24-1.35) higher adjusted odds of answering the phone and 1.69-fold (1.56-1.83) higher adjusted odds of consenting to participate compared to controls. Calls placed from 4pm to 6pm had the highest adjusted odds of being answered. Some interviewers experienced mental wellness challenges interacting with participants with physical (e.g., food, shelter, etc.) and emotional (e.g., grief counseling) needs, and enduring verbal harassment from individuals called. CONCLUSIONS: Calls placed during afternoon hours may optimize response rate when enrolling controls to a case-control study during a public health emergency response. Proactive check-ins and continual collection of interviewer experience(s) and may help maintain mental wellbeing of investigation workforce. Remaining adaptive to the dynamic needs of the investigation team is critical to a successful study, especially in emergent public health crises, like that represented by the COVID-19 pandemic.