PURPOSE: The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) receives an updated population count once every 10 years and used 2010 decennial census population counts to estimate COVID-19 vaccination coverage during the COVID-19 emergency response. We investigated whether using outdated (2010) or modeled (2020 international database [IDB]) population counts biased vaccination coverage estimates used to inform public health priorities during the 2020-2022 COVID-19 response. METHODS: We estimated percentage of USVI residents with a completed primary COVID-19 vaccination series during December 16, 2020-September 20, 2022. Vaccination coverage was calculated as number of persons who completed the vaccination series divided by 2010 and 2020 decennial census population counts and 2020 IDB intercensal estimate. RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccination coverage using the 2020 population count was 12 percentage points higher than coverage using 2010 denominator (2010 denominator: 51%; 2020 denominator: 63%). Vaccination coverage estimated using 2020 IDB was approximately equal with the 2010 decennial census estimate (52%). CONCLUSIONS: Using 2010 and modeled population counts underestimated 2020 USVI COVID-19 vaccination coverage given the 18% population decline during 2010-2020, potentially limiting USVI's ability to assess vaccination progress. Identifying mechanisms for more reliable population enumeration or improved estimate modeling are essential for accurately guiding USVI public health decision-making.

As of May 2, 2017, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), comprising St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix, had reported 1,021 probable or confirmed cases* of Zika virus disease in its population of approximately 100,000 (1); 222 symptomatic and asymptomatic pregnant women in the USVI had tested positive for Zika virus. In January 2016, USVI Department of Health (USVI DOH) initiated Zika response measures, including surveillance, vector control, and a communications program. Interventions included education and outreach, distribution of Zika prevention kitsdagger to pregnant women in the USVI, and provision of free Zika virus laboratory testing and vector control services. In November 2016, USVI DOH staff members conducted interviews with convenience samples of community members and pregnant women to gather feedback about current and proposed interventions (2). Pregnant women reported taking a median of two actions to protect themselves from Zika, with repellent use being the most commonly reported action. Community members reported taking a median of one action and were supportive of several proposed vector control approaches. Whereas multiple pregnant women and community members reported hearing messages about the cause and consequences of Zika virus infections, few recalled messages about specific actions they could take to protect themselves. Integrating evaluation into response measures permits ongoing assessment of intervention effectiveness and supports improvement to serve the population's needs.

OBJECTIVE: An 8.3 magnitude earthquake followed by tsunami waves devastated American Samoa on September 29, 2009, resulting in widespread loss of property and public services. An initial and a follow-up Community Needs Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) objectively quantified disaster-affected population needs. METHODS: Using a 2-stage cluster sampling method of CASPER, a household questionnaire eliciting information about medical and basic needs, illnesses, and injuries was administered. To assess response efforts, percent changes in basic and medical needs, illnesses, and injuries between the initial and follow-up CASPER were calculated. RESULTS: During the initial CASPER (N = 212 households), 47.6% and 51.6% of households reported needing a tarpaulin and having no electricity, respectively. The self-reported greatest needs were water (27.8%) and financial help with cleanup (25.5%). The follow-up CASPER (N = 207 households) identified increased vector problems compared to pre-tsunami, and food (26%) was identified as the self-reported greatest need. As compared to the initial CASPER, the follow-up CASPER observed decreases in electricity (-78.3%), drinking water (-44.4%), and clothing (-26.6%). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the use of CASPER during the response and recovery phases following a disaster. The initial CASPER identified basic needs immediately after the earthquake, whereas the follow-up CASPER assessed effectiveness of relief efforts and identified ongoing community needs.