Assessment of contact tracing for COVID-19 among people experiencing homelessness, Salt Lake County Health Department, March–May 2020

Contact tracing is intended to reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but it is difficult to conduct among people who live in congregate settings, including people experiencing homelessness (PEH). This analysis compares person-based contact tracing among two populations in Salt La...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of epidemiology 2021-07, Vol.59, p.50-55
Main Authors: Fields, Victoria L., Kiphibane, Tair, Eason, Jeffrey T., Hafoka, Siosaia F., Lopez, Adriana S., Schwartz, Amy, Henry, Ankita, Tran, Cuc H., Tate, Jacqueline E., Kirking, Hannah L., Laws, Rebecca L., Venkatappa, Thara, Mosites, Emily, Montgomery, Martha P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Contact Tracing
COVID-19
Epidemiology
Humans
Ill-Housed Persons
list of abbreviations and acronyms PEH = people experiencing homelessness
Original
People experiencing homelessness, Contact tracing
Public health
RT-PCR= reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction
SARS-COV-2
Utah - epidemiology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Contact tracing is intended to reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but it is difficult to conduct among people who live in congregate settings, including people experiencing homelessness (PEH). This analysis compares person-based contact tracing among two populations in Salt Lake County, Utah, from March–May 2020. All laboratory-confirmed positive cases among PEH (n = 169) and documented in Utah's surveillance system were included in this analysis. The general population comparison group (n = 163) were systematically selected from all laboratory-confirmed cases identified during the same period. Ninety-three PEH cases (55%) were interviewed compared to 163 (100%) cases among the general population (P < .0001). PEH were more likely to be lost to follow-up at end of isolation (14.2%) versus the general population (0%; P-value < .0001) and provided fewer contacts per case (0.3) than the general population (4.7) (P-value < .0001). Contacts of PEH were more often unreachable (13.0% vs. 7.1%; P-value < .0001). These findings suggest that contact tracing among PEH should include a location-based approach, along with a person-based approach when resources allow, due to challenges in identifying, locating, and reaching cases among PEH and their contacts through person-based contact tracing efforts alone.
ISSN:1047-2797
1873-2585
DOI:10.1016/j.annepidem.2021.04.002