Objectives. To compare the incidence, case-hospitalization rates, and vaccination rates of COVID-19 between people experiencing sheltered homelessness (PESH) and the broader community in Chicago, Illinois, and describe the impact of a whole community approach to disease mitigation during the public health emergency. Methods. Incidence of COVID-19 among PESH was compared with community-wide incidence using case-based surveillance data from March 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023. Seven-day rolling means of COVID-19 incidence were assessed for the overall study period and for each of 6 distinct waves of COVID-19 transmission. Results. A total of 774 009 cases of COVID-19 were detected: 2579 among PESH and 771 430 in the broader community. Incidence and hospitalization rates per 100 000 in PESH were more than 5 times higher (99.84 vs 13.94 and 16.88 vs 2.14) than the community at large in wave 1 (March 1, 2020-October 3, 2020). This difference decreased through wave 3 (March 7, 2021-June 26, 2021), with PESH having a lower incidence rate per 100 000 than the wider community (8.02 vs 13.03). Incidence and hospitalization of PESH rose again to rates higher than the broader community in waves 4 through 6 but never returned to wave 1 levels. Throughout the study period, COVID-19 incidence among PESH was 2.88 times higher than that of the community (70.90 vs 24.65), and hospitalization was 4.56 times higher among PESH (7.51 vs 1.65). Conclusions. Our findings suggest that whole-community approaches can minimize disparities in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission between vulnerable populations and the broader community, and reinforce the benefits of a shared approach that include multiple partners when addressing public health emergencies in special populations. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 28, 2024:e1-e9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307801).

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are disproportionately affected by many infectious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, communication efforts during public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic often do not consider the unique needs of PEH. We examined how PEH seek and receive health information and how traditional health communication methods resonate with them. METHODS: We conducted in-person focus groups with PEH in 4 jurisdictions (Cincinnati, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Sacramento, California; and the Bronx, New York) during July 2021. RESULTS: Findings from 15 focus groups with PEH (n=53) revealed the need for trusted messengers and consistent messaging across local organizations, as PEH seek to verify information they receive from multiple sources. PEH overwhelmingly preferred to receive health information through face-to-face conversations, especially with healthcare providers with whom they had an established relationship, but they also cited news media, the internet, and social media as their main sources for obtaining health information. PEH reported that effective communication products pair a recommended action with instructions and resources about how to take that action within their community. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support healthcare providers collaborating with public health agencies to ensure that infectious disease prevention messages for PEH are provided by trusted messengers, multimodal, paired with resources, and consistent.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruptions in behavioral health services (BHS), essential for people experiencing homelessness (PEH). BHS changes created barriers to care and opportunities for innovative strategies for reaching PEH. The authors conducted 50 qualitative interviews with behavioral health providers in the USA during August-October 2020 to explore their observations of BHS changes for PEH. Interviews were transcribed and entered into MAXQDA for analysis and to identify salient themes. The largest impact from COVID-19 was the closure or limited hours for BHS and homeless shelters due to mandated "stay-at-home" orders or staff working remotely leading to a disconnection in services and housing linkages. Most providers initiated telehealth services for clients, yielding positive outcomes. Implications for BHS are the need for long-term strategies, such as advances in communication technology to support BHS and homeless services and to ensure the needs of underserved populations are met during public health emergencies.

Through the Essentials for Childhood program, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds 7 state health departments (states) to address the urgent public health problem of adverse childhood experiences and child abuse and neglect, in particular. Through interviews and document reviews, the paper highlights the early implementation of 2 primary prevention strategies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's child abuse and neglect technical package with the greatest potential for broad public health impact to prevent adverse childhood experiences-strengthening economic supports and changing social norms. States are focused on advancing family-friendly work policies such as paid family and medical leave, livable wage policies, flexible and consistent work schedules, as well as programs and policies that strengthen household financial security such as increasing access to Earned Income Tax Credit. In addition, states are launching campaigns that focus on reframing the way people think about child abuse and neglect and who is responsible for preventing it. State-level activities such as establishing a diverse coalition of partners, program champions, and state action planning have helped to leverage and align resources needed to implement, evaluate, and sustain programs. States are working to increase awareness and commitment to multisector efforts that reduce adverse childhood experiences and promote safe, stable, nurturing relationships and environments for children. Early learning from this funding opportunity indicates that using a public health approach, states are well positioned to implement comprehensive, primary prevention strategies and approaches to ensure population-level impact for preventing child abuse and neglect and other adverse childhood experience.

Homelessness is a serious public health issue. The number of people experiencing homelessness (PEH) has been increasing since 2016; on a single night in January 2020, an estimated 580 000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States, more than 225 000 of whom were unsheltered (ie, having a primary nighttime location that is not designated as a regular sleeping accommodation, such as on the streets or in abandoned buildings, vehicles, or encampments). 1 Compared with the general US population, PEH experience elevated rates of infectious and noninfectious disease and face 3 to 10 times higher mortality rates.2,3 In the United States, non-Hispanic Black people were 3.5 times more likely than non-Hispanic White people to experience homelessness. 4 American Indian/Alaska Native people also have disproportionately high rates of homelessness compared with non-Hispanic White people. 5

For public health agencies, the pragmatic need to bring together science and practice to affect public health outcomes manifests in the implementation of prevention strategies with the best available evidence. Knowledge translation makes scientific findings understandable to the knowledge user, often through synthesis of the best available evidence. Implementation science promotes the adoption and integration of evidence through prevention strategies implemented within various contexts. Working together, knowledge translation and implementation science can promote the uptake and advancement of scientific and practice-based evidence for strategies that will have the greatest impact across a variety of contexts. Violence Prevention in Practice (VPP) is an online resource designed to help practitioners select, adapt, implement, and evaluate multiple prevention strategies included in five technical packages developed by Centers for Disease Control's Division of Violence Prevention. A technical package translates the best available evidence into a core set of prevention strategies intended to be broadly implemented. VPP supports communities in using the technical package strategies in combination, drawing on key implementation science principles. In this article, we explain the process for developing VPP and provide a framework that can be used to develop similar guidance in other health promotion areas. The framework explains how both general components, such as selection and adaptation, come together with strategy-specific implementation guidance. Distinct from typical planning models, VPP is not designed as a linear stepwise process, and it allows practitioners to use one or more components alone, as well as helps practitioners link across components as needed.

BACKGROUND: A multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is associated with coronavirus disease 2019. The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) established active, statewide surveillance to describe hospitalized patients with the syndrome. METHODS: Hospitals in New York State reported cases of Kawasaki's disease, toxic shock syndrome, myocarditis, and potential MIS-C in hospitalized patients younger than 21 years of age and sent medical records to the NYSDOH. We carried out descriptive analyses that summarized the clinical presentation, complications, and outcomes of patients who met the NYSDOH case definition for MIS-C between March 1 and May 10, 2020. RESULTS: As of May 10, 2020, a total of 191 potential cases were reported to the NYSDOH. Of 95 patients with confirmed MIS-C (laboratory-confirmed acute or recent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] infection) and 4 with suspected MIS-C (met clinical and epidemiologic criteria), 53 (54%) were male; 31 of 78 (40%) were black, and 31 of 85 (36%) were Hispanic. A total of 31 patients (31%) were 0 to 5 years of age, 42 (42%) were 6 to 12 years of age, and 26 (26%) were 13 to 20 years of age. All presented with subjective fever or chills; 97% had tachycardia, 80% had gastrointestinal symptoms, 60% had rash, 56% had conjunctival injection, and 27% had mucosal changes. Elevated levels of C-reactive protein, d-dimer, and troponin were found in 100%, 91%, and 71% of the patients, respectively; 62% received vasopressor support, 53% had evidence of myocarditis, 80% were admitted to an intensive care unit, and 2 died. The median length of hospital stay was 6 days. CONCLUSIONS: The emergence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children in New York State coincided with widespread SARS-CoV-2 transmission; this hyperinflammatory syndrome with dermatologic, mucocutaneous, and gastrointestinal manifestations was associated with cardiac dysfunction.

We appreciate Dr. Spaulding and colleagues’ thoughtful commentary on our article. We used national data to provide the most accurate estimate possible of the prevalence of hepatitis C among adults in the United States, but our estimate was dependent on the quality and completeness of the available data. We corrected for the omission of several high-prevalence populations from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), but no nationally representative studies of these populations exist. Spaulding and her colleagues raise a number of reasons why our study may underestimate the true prevalence of hepatitis C among incarcerated persons, but unfortunately, no nationwide data exist to assess the magnitude of these potential biases. According to 2016 Bureau of Justice Statistics data, most people arrested are detained in jails for short periods of time(1); thus, most of the number of persons cited in Dr. Spaulding’s reply would be eligible for NHANES sampling. We could not further adjust estimates for potential nonresponse bias beyond those addressed through standard NHANES sample weights without risk of double-counting prevalent cases. | | Varan et al.(2) data were excluded because we decided a priori to include only articles published more recently than those included in the incarcerated prevalence analysis from the Edlin et al. 2015(3) national hepatitis C virus prevalence estimate. With respect to the differential treatment of North Carolina and South Carolina from Schoenbachler et al. (4) (“study 6”), South Carolina data were excluded because “Initially, the South Carolina program targeted detainees…who had obtained tattoos in non-professional or unregulated settings.” Although testing was eventually expanded to include other detainees, Shoenbachler et al. did not indicate at what point that transition occurred or whether the expansion applied to all four South Carolina jails in the study or just one.(4) We determined that the targeted risk-based screening employed met our “sampling higher-risk subpopulations selectively” exclusion criteria, and consequently only included North Carolina data from Schoenbachler et al. in our analysis. | | Incarcerated populations bear a large and disproportionate hepatitis C burden, and incarceration provides an important opportunity to identify cases, provide life-saving curative treatment, and prevent transmission. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is looking to other systems to collect data for prevention planning and providing more support to traditional and nontraditional surveillance systems both within and outside correctional facilities. Regardless of the exact number, prevention, testing, care, and treatment of incarcerated persons with or at risk for hepatitis C is an important priority for CDC and the nation.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the most commonly reported bloodborne infection in the United States, causing substantial morbidity and mortality and costing billions of dollars annually. To update the estimated HCV prevalence among all adults aged >/=18 years in the United States, we analyzed 2013-2016 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to estimate the prevalence of HCV in the noninstitutionalized civilian population and used a combination of literature reviews and population size estimation approaches to estimate the HCV prevalence and population sizes for four additional populations: incarcerated people, unsheltered homeless people, active-duty military personnel, and nursing home residents. We estimated that during 2013-2016 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.0%) of all adults in the United States, approximately 4.1 (3.4-4.9) million persons, were HCV antibody-positive (indicating past or current infection) and that 1.0% (95% CI, 0.8-1.1%) of all adults, approximately 2.4 (2.0-2.8) million persons, were HCV RNA-positive (indicating current infection). This includes 3.7 million noninstitutionalized civilian adults in the United States with HCV antibodies and 2.1 million with HCV RNA and an estimated 0.38 million HCV antibody-positive persons and 0.25 million HCV RNA-positive persons not part of the 2013-2016 NHANES sampling frame. Conclusion: Over 2 million people in the United States had current HCV infection during 2013-2016; compared to past estimates based on similar methodology, HCV antibody prevalence may have increased, while RNA prevalence may have decreased, likely reflecting the combination of the opioid crisis, curative treatment for HCV infection, and mortality among the HCV-infected population; efforts on multiple fronts are needed to combat the evolving HCV epidemic, including increasing capacity for and access to HCV testing, linkage to care, and cure.