COVID-19 vaccines mitigate severe disease, yet uptake remains low among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) despite the risk of transmission in congregate settings like homeless shelters. This study evaluated retrospective COVID-19 vaccination intent and decision-making between March 2020-October 2021 to identify modifiable factors to improve vaccine acceptance among PEH. We conducted 31 semi-structured interviews and eight focus group discussions across six homeless shelters in Seattle-King County, Washington. Residents and staff aged >= 18 years were recruited through purposive sampling for interviews and convenience sampling for focus groups. Thematic analysis was conducted. Participants reported that too much contradictory and changing information about COVID-19 vaccines led to confusion. Information deemed trustworthy contributed to individual's knowledge and in some cases changed their vaccination intent. While many intended to get vaccinated without external motivators, others were motivated by incentives and requirements. Despite intention to vaccinate, participants reported barriers to COVID-19 vaccine access including availability of vaccine doses, timely eligibility for vaccination, and availability of appointments. Participants presented recommendations to improve COVID-19 information content and dissemination, access, and use of incentives in shelter settings. Future research should test recommended vaccination strategies rooted in the voices and experiences of PEH to determine feasibility and effectiveness in shelter settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)

People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at higher risk for chronic health conditions, but clinical characteristics and outcomes for PEH hospitalized with COVID-19 are not known. We analyzed population-based surveillance data of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations during March 1-May 31, 2020. Two percent of the people hospitalized with COVID-19 for whom a housing status was recorded were homeless. Of 199 cases in the analytic sample, most were of racial/ethnic minority groups, and had underlying health conditions. Clinical outcomes such as ICU admission, respiratory support including mechanical ventilation, and deaths were documented. Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Black persons accounted for most mechanical ventilation and deaths. Severe illness was common among persons experiencing homelessness who were hospitalized with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: Ninety-three PEH cases (55%) were interviewed compared to 163 (100%) cases among the general population (p<0.0001). PEH were more likely to be lost to follow-up at end of isolation (14.2%) versus the general population (0%; p-value<0.0001) and provided fewer contacts per case (0.31) than the general population (4.7) (p-value<0.0001). Contacts of PEH were more often unreachable (13.0% vs. 7.1%; p-value<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

People experiencing homelessness are at risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may experience barriers to hand hygiene, a primary recommendation for COVID-19 prevention. We conducted in-depth interviews with 51 people experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness in Atlanta, Georgia during May 2020 to August 2020 to (1) describe challenges and opportunities related to hand hygiene and (2) assess hand hygiene communication preferences. The primary hand hygiene barrier reported was limited access to facilities and supplies, which has disproportionately impacted people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. This lack of access has reportedly been exacerbated during COVID-19 by the closure of public facilities and businesses. Increased access to housing and employment were identified as long-term solutions to improving hand hygiene. Overall, participants expressed a preference for access to facilities and supplies over hand hygiene communication materials.

Objectives. To examine shelter characteristics and infection prevention practices in relation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection point prevalence during universal testing at homeless shelters in the United States.Methods. SARS-CoV-2 testing was offered to clients and staff at homeless shelters, irrespective of symptoms. Site assessments were conducted from March 30 to June 1, 2020, to collect information on shelter characteristics and infection prevention practices. We assessed the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence and shelter characteristics, including 20 infection prevention practices by using crude risk ratios (RRs) and exact unconditional 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results. Site assessments and SARS-CoV-2 testing results were reported for 63 homeless shelters in 7 US urban areas. Median infection prevalence was 2.9% (range = 0%-71.4%). Shelters implementing head-to-toe sleeping and excluding symptomatic staff from working were less likely to have high infection prevalence (RR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.3, 0.8; and RR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.4, 0.6; respectively); shelters with medical services available were less likely to have very high infection prevalence (RR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.2, 1.0).Conclusions. Sleeping arrangements and staffing policies are modifiable factors that might be associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence in homeless shelters. Shelters should follow recommended practices to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print March 18, 2021: e1-e6. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306198).

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness are at increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but little is known about specific risk factors for infection within homeless shelters. METHODS: We performed widespread severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction testing and collected risk factor information at all homeless shelters in Chicago with at least 1 reported case of COVID-19 (n = 21). Multivariable, mixed-effects log-binomial models were built to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for SARS-CoV-2 infection for both individual- and facility-level risk factors. RESULTS: During March 1 to May 1, 2020, 1717 shelter residents and staff were tested for SARS-CoV-2; 472 (27%) persons tested positive. Prevalence of infection was higher for residents (431 of 1435, 30%) than for staff (41 of 282, 15%) (prevalence ratio = 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-3.58). The majority of residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection (293 of 406 with available information about symptoms, 72%) reported no symptoms at the time of specimen collection or within the following 2 weeks. Among residents, sharing a room with a large number of people was associated with increased likelihood of infection (aPR for sharing with >20 people compared with single rooms = 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11-2.80), and current smoking was associated with reduced likelihood of infection (aPR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85). At the facility level, a higher proportion of residents leaving and returning each day was associated with increased prevalence (aPR = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16), whereas an increase in the number of private bathrooms was associated with reduced prevalence (aPR for 1 additional private bathroom per 100 people = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in homeless shelters. Reducing the number of residents sharing dormitories might reduce the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection. When community transmission is high, limiting movement of persons experiencing homelessness into and out of shelters might also be beneficial.

BACKGROUND: In response to reported COVID-19 outbreaks among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) in other U.S. cities, we conducted multiple, proactive, facility-wide testing events for PEH living sheltered and unsheltered and homelessness service staff in Atlanta, Georgia. We describe SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and associated symptoms and review shelter infection prevention and control (IPC) policies. METHODS: PEH and staff were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during April 7-May 6, 2020. A subset of PEH and staff was screened for symptoms. Shelter assessments were conducted concurrently at a convenience sample of shelters using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, 2,875 individuals at 24 shelters and nine unsheltered outreach events underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing and 2,860 (99.5%) had conclusive test results. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 2.1% (36/1,684) among PEH living sheltered, 0.5% (3/628) among PEH living unsheltered, and 1.3% (7/548) among staff. Reporting fever, cough, or shortness of breath in the last week during symptom screening was 14% sensitive and 89% specific for identifying COVID-19 cases compared with RT-PCR. Prevalence by shelter ranged 0%-27.6%. Repeat testing 3-4 weeks later at four shelters documented decreased SARS-CoV-2 prevalence (0%-3.9%). Nine of 24 shelters completed shelter assessments and implemented IPC measures as part of the COVID-19 response. CONCLUSIONS: PEH living in shelters experienced higher SARS-CoV-2 prevalence compared with PEH living unsheltered. Facility-wide testing in congregate settings allowed for identification and isolation of COVID-19 cases and is an important strategy to interrupt SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

After 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction in the US in 2000, invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) due to serotype 4 greatly decreased in children and adults. Starting in 2013, serotype 4 IPD incidence increased among adults >18 years old within three of ten Active Bacterial Core surveillance sites. Of 325 serotype 4 cases among adults in 2010-2018, 36% were from persons experiencing homelessness (PEH); incidence of serotype 4 IPD among PEH was 100-300 times higher than in the general population within these 3 areas. Genome sequencing for isolates recovered during 2015-2018 (n=246), revealed that increases in serotype 4 IPD were driven by lineages, ST10172, ST244, and ST695. Within each lineage, clusters of near-identical isolates indicated close temporal relatedness. Increases in serotype 4 IPD were limited to Colorado, California, and New Mexico, with highest increases observed among PEH, who were at increased risk for exposure to and infections caused by these strains.

On March 30, 2020, Public Health - Seattle and King County (PHSKC) was notified of a confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a resident of a homeless shelter and day center (shelter A). Residents from two other homeless shelters (B and C) used shelter A's day center services. Testing for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was offered to available residents and staff members at the three shelters during March 30-April 1, 2020. Among the 181 persons tested, 19 (10.5%) had positive test results (15 residents and four staff members). On April 1, PHSKC and CDC collaborated to conduct site assessments and symptom screening, isolate ill residents and staff members, reinforce infection prevention and control practices, provide face masks, and advise on sheltering-in-place. Repeat testing was offered April 7-8 to all residents and staff members who were not tested initially or who had negative test results. Among the 118 persons tested in the second round of testing, 18 (15.3%) had positive test results (16 residents and two staff members). In addition to the 31 residents and six staff members identified through testing at the shelters, two additional cases in residents were identified during separate symptom screening events, and four were identified after two residents and two staff members independently sought health care. In total, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 35 of 195 (18%) residents and eight of 38 (21%) staff members who received testing at the shelter or were evaluated elsewhere. COVID-19 can spread quickly in homeless shelters; rapid interventions including testing and isolation to identify cases and minimize transmission are necessary. CDC recommends that homeless service providers implement appropriate infection control practices, apply physical distancing measures including ensuring resident's heads are at least 6 feet (2 meters) apart while sleeping, and promote use of cloth face coverings among all residents (1).

In the United States, approximately 1.4 million persons access emergency shelter or transitional housing each year (1). These settings can pose risks for communicable disease spread. In late March and early April 2020, public health teams responded to clusters (two or more cases in the preceding 2 weeks) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in residents and staff members from five homeless shelters in Boston, Massachusetts (one shelter); San Francisco, California (one); and Seattle, Washington (three). The investigations were performed in coordination with academic partners, health care providers, and homeless service providers. Investigations included reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing at commercial and public health laboratories for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, over approximately 1-2 weeks for residents and staff members at the five shelters. During the same period, the team in Seattle, Washington, also tested residents and staff members at 12 shelters where a single case in each had been identified. In Atlanta, Georgia, a team proactively tested residents and staff members at two shelters with no known COVID-19 cases in the preceding 2 weeks. In each city, the objective was to test all shelter residents and staff members at each assessed facility, irrespective of symptoms. Persons who tested positive were transported to hospitals or predesignated community isolation areas.

Background: In 2016, we detected an outbreak of group A Streptococcus (GAS) invasive infections among the estimated 1000 persons experiencing homelessness (PEH) in Anchorage, Alaska. We characterized the outbreak and implemented a mass antibiotic intervention at homeless service facilities. Methods: We identified cases through the Alaska GAS laboratory-based surveillance system. We conducted emm typing, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and whole-genome sequencing on all invasive isolates and compared medical record data of patients infected with emm26.3 and other emm types. In February 2017, we offered PEH at 6 facilities in Anchorage a single dose of 1 g of azithromycin. We collected oropharyngeal and nonintact skin swabs on a subset of participants concurrent with the intervention and 4 weeks afterward. Results: From July 2016 through April 2017, we detected 42 invasive emm26.3 cases in Anchorage, 35 of which were in PEH. The emm26.3 isolates differed on average by only 2 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Compared to other emm types, infection with emm26.3 was associated with cellulitis (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; P = .04) and necrotizing fasciitis (OR, 4.4; P = .02). We dispensed antibiotics to 391 PEH. Colonization with emm26.3 decreased from 4% of 277 at baseline to 1% of 287 at follow-up (P = .05). Invasive GAS incidence decreased from 1.5 cases per 1000 PEH/week in the 6 weeks prior to the intervention to 0.2 cases per 1000 PEH/week in the 6 weeks after (P = .01). Conclusions: In an invasive GAS outbreak in PEH in Anchorage, mass antibiotic administration was temporally associated with reduced invasive disease cases and colonization prevalence.

The gut microbiome community structure and development are associated with several health outcomes in young children. To determine the household influences of gut microbiome structure, we assessed microbial sharing within households in western Kenya by sequencing 16S rRNA libraries of fecal samples from children and cattle, cloacal swabs from chickens, and swabs of household surfaces. Among the 156 households studied, children within the same household significantly shared their gut microbiome with each other, although we did not find significant sharing of gut microbiome across host species or household surfaces. Higher gut microbiome diversity among children was associated with lower wealth status and involvement in livestock feeding chores. Although more research is necessary to identify further drivers of microbiota development, these results suggest that the household should be considered as a unit. Livestock activities, health and microbiome perturbations among an individual child may have implications for other children in the household.