Last data update: Nov 04, 2024. (Total: 48056 publications since 2009)
Records 1-2 (of 2 Records) |
Query Trace: Dunams T[original query] |
---|
The Impact of Community-Based Testing Sites and Gift Incentives on COVID-19 Testing Uptake in Maryland, April 29 - May 9, 2021.
Turbyfill C , Thomas I , Agravat N , Prasher JM , Nett RJ , Stevens M , Ricaldi JN , Dunams TM , Brickhouse-Frazier L , Carter MD , Gebru Y , King A , May CS , Miller JD , Oguh C , Pullman A , Roman K , Rose C , Scherr R , Sidibe T , Soelaeman R , Weinstein J , Wilson T , Tran CH . Am J Health Promot 2022 37 (2) 8901171221119796 PURPOSE: Information on incentives for COVID-19 testing is needed to understand effective practices that encourage testing uptake. We describe characteristics of those who received an incentive after performing a rapid antigen test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive analysis of survey data. SETTING: During April 29-May 9, 2021, COVID-19 rapid antigen testing was offered in 2 Maryland cities. SAMPLE: Convenience sample of 553 adults (≥18 years) who tested and received an incentive; 93% consented to survey. MEASURES: Survey questions assessed reasons for testing, testing history, barriers, and demographics. ANALYSIS: Robust Poisson regressions were used to determine characteristic differences based on testing history and between participants who would re-test in the future without an incentive vs participants who would not. RESULTS: The most common reasons for testing were the desire to be tested (n = 280; 54%) and convenience of location (n = 146; 28%). Those motivated by an incentive to test (n = 110; 21%) were 5.83 times as likely to state they would not test again without an incentive, compared to those with other reasons for testing (95% CI: 2.67-12.72, P < .001). CRITICAL LIMITATIONS: No comparative study group. CONCLUSION: Results indicate internal motivation and convenience were prominent factors supporting testing uptake. Incentives may increase community testing participation, particularly among people who have never tested. Keywords COVID-19, pandemic, incentives, health behavior, community testing. |
Possible Zika virus infection among pregnant women - United States and Territories, May 2016
Simeone RM , Shapiro-Mendoza CK , Meaney-Delman D , Petersen EE , Galang RR , Oduyebo T , Rivera-Garcia B , Valencia-Prado M , Newsome KB , Perez-Padilla J , Williams TR , Biggerstaff M , Jamieson DJ , Honein MA , Ahmed F , Anesi S , Arnold KE , Barradas D , Barter D , Bertolli J , Bingham AM , Bollock J , Bosse T , Bradley KK , Brady D , Brown CM , Bryan K , Buchanan V , Bullard PD , Carrigan A , Clouse M , Cook S , Cooper M , Davidson S , DeBarr A , Dobbs T , Dunams T , Eason J , Eckert A , Eggers P , Ellington SR , Feldpausch A , Fredette CR , Gabel J , Glover M , Gosciminski M , Gay M , Haddock R , Hand S , Hardy J , Hartel ME , Hennenfent AK , Hills SL , House J , Igbinosa I , Im L , Jeff H , Khan S , Kightlinger L , Ko JY , Koirala S , Korhonen L , Krishnasamy V , Kurkjian K , Lampe M , Larson S , Lee EH , Lind L , Lindquist S , Long J , Macdonald J , MacFarquhar J , Mackie DP , Mark-Carew M , Martin B , Martinez-Quinones A , Matthews-Greer J , McGee SA , McLaughlin J , Mock V , Muna E , Oltean H , O'Mallan J , Pagano HP , Park SY , Peterson D , Polen KN , Porse CC , Rao CY , Ropri A , Rinsky J , Robinson S , Rosinger AY , Ruberto I , Schiffman E , Scott-Waldron C , Semple S , Sharp T , Short K , Signs K , Slavinski SA , Stevens T , Sweatlock J , Talbot EA , Tonzel J , Traxler R , Tubach S , Van Houten C , VinHatton E , Viray M , Virginie D , Warren MD , Waters C , White P , Williams T , Winters AI , Wood S , Zaganjor I . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016 65 (20) 514-9 Zika virus is a cause of microcephaly and brain abnormalities (1), and it is the first known mosquito-borne infection to cause congenital anomalies in humans. The establishment of a comprehensive surveillance system to monitor pregnant women with Zika virus infection will provide data to further elucidate the full range of potential outcomes for fetuses and infants of mothers with asymptomatic and symptomatic Zika virus infection during pregnancy. In February 2016, Zika virus disease and congenital Zika virus infections became nationally notifiable conditions in the United States (2). Cases in pregnant women with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection who have either 1) symptomatic infection or 2) asymptomatic infection with diagnosed complications of pregnancy can be reported as cases of Zika virus disease to ArboNET* (2), CDC's national arboviral diseases surveillance system. Under existing interim guidelines from the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), asymptomatic Zika virus infections in pregnant women who do not have known pregnancy complications are not reportable. ArboNET does not currently include pregnancy surveillance information (e.g., gestational age or pregnancy exposures) or pregnancy outcomes. To understand the full impact of infection on the fetus and neonate, other systems are needed for reporting and active monitoring of pregnant women with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy. Thus, in collaboration with state, local, tribal, and territorial health departments, CDC established two surveillance systems to monitor pregnancies and congenital outcomes among women with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection(dagger) in the United States and territories: 1) the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry (USZPR),( section sign) which monitors pregnant women residing in U.S. states and all U.S. territories except Puerto Rico, and 2) the Zika Active Pregnancy Surveillance System (ZAPSS), which monitors pregnant women residing in Puerto Rico. As of May 12, 2016, the surveillance systems were monitoring 157 and 122 pregnant women with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection from participating U.S. states and territories, respectively. Tracking and monitoring clinical presentation of Zika virus infection, all prenatal testing, and adverse consequences of Zika virus infection during pregnancy are critical to better characterize the risk for congenital infection, the performance of prenatal diagnostic testing, and the spectrum of adverse congenital outcomes. These data will improve clinical guidance, inform counseling messages for pregnant women, and facilitate planning for clinical and public health services for affected families. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Nov 04, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure