Background Although many viral respiratory illnesses are transmitted within households, the evidence base for SARS-CoV-2 is nascent. We sought to characterize SARS-CoV-2 transmission within US households and estimate the household secondary infection rate (SIR) to inform strategies to reduce transmission. Methods We recruited laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients and their household contacts in Utah and Wisconsin during March 22–April 25, 2020. We interviewed patients and all household contacts to obtain demographics and medical histories. At the initial household visit, 14 days later, and when a household contact became newly symptomatic, we collected respiratory swabs from patients and household contacts for testing by SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR and sera for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies testing by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We estimated SIR and odds ratios (OR) to assess risk factors for secondary infection, defined by a positive rRT-PCR or ELISA test. Results Thirty-two (55%) of 58 households had evidence of secondary infection among household contacts. The SIR was 29% (n = 55/188; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 23–36%) overall, 42% among children (<18 years) of the COVID-19 patient and 33% among spouses/partners. Household contacts to COVID-19 patients with immunocompromised conditions had increased odds of infection (OR: 15.9, 95% CI: 2.4–106.9). Household contacts who themselves had diabetes mellitus had increased odds of infection (OR: 7.1, 95% CI: 1.2–42.5). Conclusions We found substantial evidence of secondary infections among household contacts. People with COVID-19, particularly those with immunocompromising conditions or those with household contacts with diabetes, should take care to promptly self-isolate to prevent household transmission.

This is a prepublication version of an article that has undergone peer review and been accepted for publication but is not the final version of record. This paper may be cited using the DOI and date of access. This paper may contain information that has errors in facts, figures, and statements, and will be corrected in the final published version. The journal is providing an early version of this article to expedite access to this information. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the editors, and authors are not responsible for inaccurate information and data described in this version.

Telephone interviews were conducted with more than 900 adolescents aged 12 to 18 as part of a multimillion dollar, statewide, antitobacco advertising campaign. The interviews addressed two primary questions: (1) Do counteradvertising campaign attitudes directly affect antismoking beliefs and intent in a manner similar to those of conventional advertisements? and (2) Can advertising campaign attitudes have a stronger effect on beliefs and intent for adolescents with prior smoking behavior and for adolescents exposed to social influence (i.e., friends, siblings, or adult smoker in the home)? The authors' findings show that advertising campaign attitudes, prior trial behavior, and social influence all directly affect antismoking beliefs and that advertising campaign attitudes interact with prior trial behavior to strengthen antismoking beliefs. The results indicate that attitudes related to the campaign, prior trial behavior, and social influence directly influence intent, and advertising campaign attitudes interact with social influence and prior trial behavior to attenuate adolescent intent to smoke. In addition, the effect of advertising campaign attitudes in attenuating social influence and prior trial behavior effects on adolescent intent to smoke persists even when the authors account for strongly held beliefs about smoking. The authors discuss implications for countermarketing communications and the design and understanding of future antismoking campaigns.

Background Improved understanding of SARS-CoV-2 spectrum of disease is essential for clinical and public health interventions. There are limited data on mild or asymptomatic infections, but recognition of these individuals is key as they contribute to viral transmission. We describe the symptom profiles from individuals with mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods From March 22 to April 22, 2020 in Wisconsin and Utah, we enrolled and prospectively observed 198 household contacts exposed to SARS-CoV-2. We collected and tested nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens by RT-PCR two or more times during a 14-day period. Contacts completed daily symptom diaries. We characterized symptom profiles on the date of first positive RT-PCR test and described progression of symptoms over time. Results We identified 47 contacts, median age 24 (3-75) years, with detectable SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The most commonly reported symptoms on the day of first positive RT-PCR test were upper respiratory (n=32, 68%) and neurologic (n=30, 64%); fever was not commonly reported (n=9, 19%). Eight (17%) individuals were asymptomatic at the date of first positive RT-PCR collection; two (4%) had preceding symptoms that resolved and six (13%) subsequently developed symptoms. Children less frequently reported lower respiratory symptoms (age <18: 21%, age 18-49: 60%, age 50+ years: 69%; p=0.03). Conclusions Household contacts with lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported mild symptoms. When assessed at a single time-point, several contacts appeared to have asymptomatic infection; however, over time all developed symptoms. These findings are important to inform infection control, contact tracing, and community mitigation strategies.

There is a tension between 2 alternative approaches to implementing community-based interventions. The evidence-based public health movement emphasizes the scientific basis of prevention by disseminating rigorously evaluated interventions from academic and governmental agencies to local communities. Models used by local health departments to incorporate community input into their planning, such as the community health improvement process (CHIP), emphasize community leadership in identifying health problems and developing and implementing health improvement strategies. Each approach has limitations. Modifying CHIP to formally include consideration of evidence-based interventions in both the planning and evaluation phases leads to an evidence-driven community health improvement process that can serve as a useful framework for uniting the different approaches while emphasizing community ownership, priorities, and wisdom.