Last data update: Jan 13, 2025. (Total: 48570 publications since 2009)
Records 1-7 (of 7 Records) |
Query Trace: Mainzer H[original query] |
---|
On alert for Ebola: public health risk assessment of travellers from Uganda to the U.S. during the 2022 outbreak
Fowler JJ , Preston LE , Gearhart SL , Figueroa A , LChristensen D , Mitchell C , Hernandez E , Grills AW , Morrison SM , Wilkinson M , Talib T , Marie Lavilla K , Watson T , Mitcham D , Nash R , Veguilla MAC , Hansen S , Cohen NJ , Nu Clarke SA , Smithson A , Shearer E , Pella DG , Morris JD , Meehan S , Aboukheir M , Adams K , Sunavala Z , Conley J , Abouattier M , Palo M , Pimentel LC , Berro A , Mainzer H , Byrkit R , Kim D , Katebi V , Alvarado-Ramy F , Roohi S , Wojno AE , Brown CM , Gertz AM . J Travel Med 2024 31 (5) BACKGROUND: On 20 September 2022, the Ugandan Ministry of Health declared an outbreak of Ebola disease caused by Sudan ebolavirus. METHODS: From 6 October 2022 to 10 January 2023, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) staff conducted public health assessments at five US ports of entry for travellers identified as having been in Uganda in the past 21 days. CDC also recommended that state, local and territorial health departments ('health departments') conduct post-arrival monitoring of these travellers. CDC provided traveller contact information, daily to 58 health departments, and collected health department data regarding monitoring outcomes. RESULTS: Among 11 583 travellers screened, 132 (1%) required additional assessment due to potential exposures or symptoms of concern. Fifty-three (91%) health departments reported receiving traveller data from CDC for 10 114 (87%) travellers, of whom 8499 (84%) were contacted for monitoring, 1547 (15%) could not be contacted and 68 (1%) had no reported outcomes. No travellers with high-risk exposures or Ebola disease were identified. CONCLUSION: Entry risk assessment and post-arrival monitoring of travellers are resource-intensive activities that had low demonstrated yield during this and previous outbreaks. The efficiency of future responses could be improved by incorporating an assessment of risk of importation of disease, accounting for individual travellers' potential for exposure, and expanded use of methods that reduce burden to federal agencies, health departments, and travellers. |
The 2017 Hurricane Public Health Responses: Case Studies Illustrating the Role of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Emergency Preparedness Program - Erratum
Martinez D , Landon KA , McDermott W , Roth J , Schnall AH , Talbert TP , Mainzer HM . Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2020 17 e8 In the original publication of this article, the title | was incorrect, and the key words were left out. The | article has since been corrected. | The publisher apologizes for the error. |
Factors That Might Affect SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Among Foreign-Born and U.S.-Born Poultry Facility Workers - Maryland, May 2020.
Rubenstein BL , Campbell S , Meyers AR , Crum DA , Mitchell CS , Hutson J , Williams DL , Senesie SS , Gilani Z , Reynolds S , Alba B , Tavitian S , Billings K , Saintus L , Martin SBJr , Mainzer H . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 69 (50) 1906-1910 Numerous recent assessments indicate that meat and poultry processing facility workers are at increased risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1-4). Physical proximity to other workers and shared equipment can facilitate disease transmission in these settings (2-4). The disproportionate number of foreign-born workers employed in meat and poultry processing reflects structural, social, and economic inequities that likely contribute to an increased COVID-19 incidence in this population* (5). In May 2020, the Maryland Department of Health and CDC investigated factors that might affect person-to-person SARS-CoV-2 transmission among persons who worked at two poultry processing facilities. A survey administered to 359 workers identified differences in risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection between workers born outside the United States and U.S.-born workers. Compared with U.S.-born workers, foreign-born workers had higher odds of working in fixed locations on the production floor (odds ratio [OR] for cutup and packaging jobs = 4.8), of having shared commutes (OR = 1.9), and of living with other poultry workers (OR = 6.0). They had lower odds of participating in social gatherings (OR for visits to family = 0.2; OR for visits to friends = 0.4), and they visited fewer businesses in the week before the survey than did their U.S.-born coworkers. Some workplace risk factors can be mitigated through engineering and administrative controls focused on the production floor, and this will be of particular benefit to the foreign-born workers concentrated in these areas. Employers and health departments can also partner with local organizations to disseminate culturally and linguistically tailored messages about risk reduction behaviors in community settings, including shared transportation(§) and household members dwelling in close quarters. |
Update: COVID-19 Among Workers in Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities - United States, April-May 2020.
Waltenburg MA , Victoroff T , Rose CE , Butterfield M , Jervis RH , Fedak KM , Gabel JA , Feldpausch A , Dunne EM , Austin C , Ahmed FS , Tubach S , Rhea C , Krueger A , Crum DA , Vostok J , Moore MJ , Turabelidze G , Stover D , Donahue M , Edge K , Gutierrez B , Kline KE , Martz N , Rajotte JC , Julian E , Diedhiou A , Radcliffe R , Clayton JL , Ortbahn D , Cummins J , Barbeau B , Murphy J , Darby B , Graff NR , Dostal TKH , Pray IW , Tillman C , Dittrich MM , Burns-Grant G , Lee S , Spieckerman A , Iqbal K , Griffing SM , Lawson A , Mainzer HM , Bealle AE , Edding E , Arnold KE , Rodriguez T , Merkle S , Pettrone K , Schlanger K , LaBar K , Hendricks K , Lasry A , Krishnasamy V , Walke HT , Rose DA , Honein MA . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 69 (27) 887-892 Meat and poultry processing facilities face distinctive challenges in the control of infectious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). COVID-19 outbreaks among meat and poultry processing facility workers can rapidly affect large numbers of persons. Assessment of COVID-19 cases among workers in 115 meat and poultry processing facilities through April 27, 2020, documented 4,913 cases and 20 deaths reported by 19 states (1). This report provides updated aggregate data from states regarding the number of meat and poultry processing facilities affected by COVID-19, the number and demographic characteristics of affected workers, and the number of COVID-19-associated deaths among workers, as well as descriptions of interventions and prevention efforts at these facilities. Aggregate data on confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths among workers identified and reported through May 31, 2020, were obtained from 239 affected facilities (those with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 case in one or more workers) in 23 states.* COVID-19 was confirmed in 16,233 workers, including 86 COVID-19-related deaths. Among 14 states reporting the total number of workers in affected meat and poultry processing facilities (112,616), COVID-19 was diagnosed in 9.1% of workers. Among 9,919 (61%) cases in 21 states with reported race/ethnicity, 87% occurred among racial and ethnic minority workers. Commonly reported interventions and prevention efforts at facilities included implementing worker temperature or symptom screening and COVID-19 education, mandating face coverings, adding hand hygiene stations, and adding physical barriers between workers. Targeted workplace interventions and prevention efforts that are appropriately tailored to the groups most affected by COVID-19 are critical to reducing both COVID-19-associated occupational risk and health disparities among vulnerable populations. Implementation of these interventions and prevention efforts(dagger) across meat and poultry processing facilities nationally could help protect workers in this critical infrastructure industry. |
Serial hurricanes the 2017 hurricane public health responses: Case studies illustrating the role of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Emergency Preparedness Program
Martinez D , Landon KA , McDermott W , Roth J , Schnall AH , Talbert TP , Mainzer HM . Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2020 17 1-5 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of State and Local Readiness (DSLR), Public Health Emergency Preparedness(PHEP) program funds 62 recipients to strengthen capability standards to prepare for and respond to public health emergencies. Recipients use these PHEP resources in addition to CDC's administrative and scientific guidance to support preparedness and response program planning and requirements. It is expected that public health agencies develop and maintain comprehensive emergency preparedness and response plans in preparation for disasters such as hurricanes. The 2017 historic hurricane season highlighted how emergency planning and collaborative operational execution is important for public health agencies to effectively prepare for and respond to both the immediate and long-term population health consequences of these disasters. In 2017, the southeastern United States (US) and US Caribbean territories experienced 3 Category 4 or higher Atlantic hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, and Maria) within a 5-week period. This paper highlights selected case studies that illustrate the contributions and impact of jurisdictional emergency management planning and operational capacity supported by capability standards during the 2017 hurricane season. Although the magnitude of the 2017 hurricanes required public health officials to seek additional assistance, the following case studies describe the use of public health preparedness systems and recovery resources supported by the PHEP program. |
Essential public health services framework: Use for rebuilding communities
Mainzer HM , Kruger J , Mahany M . Am J Public Health 2019 109 S271-s273 In addition to catastrophic immediate impacts, communities in the United States remain vulnerable to the long-term effects of severe tropical cyclones and hurricanes caused by storm surge, flooding, and high winds.1 In September 2017, Hurricanes Irma and Maria struck Puerto Rico causing catastrophic damage to the entire commonwealth. Many buildings were damaged or destroyed, including primary care clinics, hospitals, and public health and social services facilities. Essential life-sustaining services such as power, water, and communication were temporarily inoperable, and employment, agriculture, education, and tourism were disrupted.2 In this editorial, we suggest that the Essential Public Health Services (EPHS) framework can be used as a strategic starting point for planning public health system recovery following disasters. |
Introduction to Healthy People in a Healthy Environment
Mainzer HM , Morrett DB . Public Health Rep 2011 126 1-2 This special supplement of Public Health Reports, “Healthy People in a Healthy Environment,” represents an addendum to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2009 National Environmental Public Health Conference of the same name, which drew a national audience of 1,300 to Atlanta, Georgia, from October 26–28, 2009. The meeting promoted the nation's environmental health scientific and practice capacity by enhancing the expertise of environmental health professionals, including public health and health-care professionals, academic researchers, representatives from communities and organizations, and advocacy and business groups. The conference aimed to develop and encourage innovative strategies for addressing existing and emerging issues impacting environmental public health, the discipline that focuses on the interrelationships between people and their environment, promotes human health and well-being, and fosters a safe and healthful environment. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Jan 13, 2025
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure