缺勤人群参加现场卫生服务活动:适应COVID-19大流行的准实验方法的应用

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Leslie D Leve, David S DeGarmo, Jacob Searcy, Elizabeth L Budd, Jorge I Ramírez García, Anne Marie Mauricio, William A Cresko
{"title":"缺勤人群参加现场卫生服务活动:适应COVID-19大流行的准实验方法的应用","authors":"Leslie D Leve, David S DeGarmo, Jacob Searcy, Elizabeth L Budd, Jorge I Ramírez García, Anne Marie Mauricio, William A Cresko","doi":"10.1007/s11121-025-01769-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the ability to receive health care services. Field-based health services became a logistically feasible alternative to medical center-based care. We compared two different field-based approaches to the delivery of SARS-CoV-2 testing and health education services for Latine communities using a quasi-experimental design that included propensity score matching to accommodate the challenges posed to research by the pandemic. From September 2021 through October 2022, we held 434 testing events, of which 234 used a geolocation approach and 200 used a partner-located approach to determine the location of the health services (n = 68 field sites in Oregon). We hypothesized that partner-located sites would obtain higher numbers of tests collected relative to geolocated sites, and that longer drive times to testing sites would be associated with lower testing rates. There were no differences in the number of tests collected by geolocated versus partner-located sites, controlling for population size and time-varying pandemic vulnerabilities measured as COVID-19 cases and deaths. Prior to propensity score weighting, a longer drive time to the testing site (both site types) was associated with a lower likelihood of total tests (IRR = .87, p < .01, CI [0.54, 0.92]), of Latine tests (IRR = .69, p < .001, CI [0.56, 0.84]), and of male tests collected (IRR = .67, p < .05, CI [0.47, 0.94]). The site's number of prior tests was associated with a significant 2% increase in tests collected and the prior week's number of county deaths was associated with a roughly 30% decrease in the likelihood of tests collected. However, the reduced testing rate when the death rate was higher was less likely in geolocated sites (IRR = 1.55, p < .001, CI [1.20, 2.01]). Implications for the utility of propensity score matching and time-varying covariates to accommodate pandemic challenges posed to research are discussed. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT05082935. Date of registration: 10/15/2021.</p>","PeriodicalId":48268,"journal":{"name":"Prevention Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Attendance of Underserved Populations at Field-Based Health Services Events: Application of Quasi-Experimental Methods that Accommodate the COVID-19 Pandemic.\",\"authors\":\"Leslie D Leve, David S DeGarmo, Jacob Searcy, Elizabeth L Budd, Jorge I Ramírez García, Anne Marie Mauricio, William A Cresko\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11121-025-01769-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the ability to receive health care services. Field-based health services became a logistically feasible alternative to medical center-based care. We compared two different field-based approaches to the delivery of SARS-CoV-2 testing and health education services for Latine communities using a quasi-experimental design that included propensity score matching to accommodate the challenges posed to research by the pandemic. From September 2021 through October 2022, we held 434 testing events, of which 234 used a geolocation approach and 200 used a partner-located approach to determine the location of the health services (n = 68 field sites in Oregon). We hypothesized that partner-located sites would obtain higher numbers of tests collected relative to geolocated sites, and that longer drive times to testing sites would be associated with lower testing rates. There were no differences in the number of tests collected by geolocated versus partner-located sites, controlling for population size and time-varying pandemic vulnerabilities measured as COVID-19 cases and deaths. Prior to propensity score weighting, a longer drive time to the testing site (both site types) was associated with a lower likelihood of total tests (IRR = .87, p < .01, CI [0.54, 0.92]), of Latine tests (IRR = .69, p < .001, CI [0.56, 0.84]), and of male tests collected (IRR = .67, p < .05, CI [0.47, 0.94]). The site's number of prior tests was associated with a significant 2% increase in tests collected and the prior week's number of county deaths was associated with a roughly 30% decrease in the likelihood of tests collected. However, the reduced testing rate when the death rate was higher was less likely in geolocated sites (IRR = 1.55, p < .001, CI [1.20, 2.01]). Implications for the utility of propensity score matching and time-varying covariates to accommodate pandemic challenges posed to research are discussed. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT05082935. Date of registration: 10/15/2021.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48268,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prevention Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prevention Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-025-01769-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prevention Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-025-01769-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

COVID-19大流行破坏了获得医疗服务的能力。外地保健服务在后勤上成为医疗中心护理的可行替代方案。我们比较了两种不同的基于现场的方法,为拉丁社区提供SARS-CoV-2检测和健康教育服务,使用准实验设计,包括倾向评分匹配,以适应大流行给研究带来的挑战。从2021年9月到2022年10月,我们举办了434次测试活动,其中234次使用地理定位方法,200次使用合作伙伴定位方法来确定卫生服务的位置(俄勒冈州的68个现场站点)。我们假设,伙伴定位的站点将获得相对于地理位置的站点收集的更多的测试,并且到测试站点的较长驾驶时间将与较低的测试率相关联。在控制了人口规模和以COVID-19病例和死亡为衡量标准的时变大流行脆弱性的情况下,地理位置和合作伙伴位置的站点收集的检测数量没有差异。在倾向得分加权之前,较长的驾驶时间到测试地点(两种地点类型)与较低的总测试可能性(IRR =)相关。87页
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Attendance of Underserved Populations at Field-Based Health Services Events: Application of Quasi-Experimental Methods that Accommodate the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the ability to receive health care services. Field-based health services became a logistically feasible alternative to medical center-based care. We compared two different field-based approaches to the delivery of SARS-CoV-2 testing and health education services for Latine communities using a quasi-experimental design that included propensity score matching to accommodate the challenges posed to research by the pandemic. From September 2021 through October 2022, we held 434 testing events, of which 234 used a geolocation approach and 200 used a partner-located approach to determine the location of the health services (n = 68 field sites in Oregon). We hypothesized that partner-located sites would obtain higher numbers of tests collected relative to geolocated sites, and that longer drive times to testing sites would be associated with lower testing rates. There were no differences in the number of tests collected by geolocated versus partner-located sites, controlling for population size and time-varying pandemic vulnerabilities measured as COVID-19 cases and deaths. Prior to propensity score weighting, a longer drive time to the testing site (both site types) was associated with a lower likelihood of total tests (IRR = .87, p < .01, CI [0.54, 0.92]), of Latine tests (IRR = .69, p < .001, CI [0.56, 0.84]), and of male tests collected (IRR = .67, p < .05, CI [0.47, 0.94]). The site's number of prior tests was associated with a significant 2% increase in tests collected and the prior week's number of county deaths was associated with a roughly 30% decrease in the likelihood of tests collected. However, the reduced testing rate when the death rate was higher was less likely in geolocated sites (IRR = 1.55, p < .001, CI [1.20, 2.01]). Implications for the utility of propensity score matching and time-varying covariates to accommodate pandemic challenges posed to research are discussed. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT05082935. Date of registration: 10/15/2021.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Prevention Science
Prevention Science PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.40%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: Prevention Science is the official publication of the Society for Prevention Research. The Journal serves as an interdisciplinary forum designed to disseminate new developments in the theory, research and practice of prevention. Prevention sciences encompassing etiology, epidemiology and intervention are represented through peer-reviewed original research articles on a variety of health and social problems, including but not limited to substance abuse, mental health, HIV/AIDS, violence, accidents, teenage pregnancy, suicide, delinquency, STD''s, obesity, diet/nutrition, exercise, and chronic illness. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical articles, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, brief reports, replication studies, and papers concerning new developments in methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信