BackgroundPopulation-based serological surveys provide a means for assessing the immunologic landscape of a community, without the biases related to health-seeking behaviors and testing practices typically associated with rt-PCR testing. This study assesses SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence over the first epidemic wave in Canton Geneva, Switzerland, as well as biological and socio-economic risk factors for infection and symptoms associated with IgG seropositivity.Methods and findingsBetween April 6 and June 30, 2020, former participants of a yearly representative cross-sectional survey of the 20-75-year-old population of the canton of Geneva were invited to participate in a seroprevalence study, along with household members five years and older. We collected blood and tested it for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins G (IgG). Questionnaires were self-administered. We estimated seroprevalence with a Bayesian model accounting for test performance and sampling design. We included 8344 participants (53.5% women, mean age 46.9 years). The population-level seroprevalence over the 12-week study period was 7.8 % (95% Credible Interval (CrI) 6.8-8.9), accounting for sex, age and household random effects. Seroprevalence was highest among 18-49 year olds (9.5%, 95%CrI 8.1-10.9), with young children (5-9 years) and those >65 years having significantly lower seroprevalence (4.3% and 4.7-5.4% respectively). Men were more likely to be seropositive than women (relative risk 1.2, 95%CrI 1.1-1.4). Odds of seropositivity were reduced for female retirees (0.46, 95%CI 0.23-0.93) and unemployed men (0.35, 95%CI 0.13-1.0) compared to employed individuals, and for current smokers (0.36, 95%CI 0.23-0.55) compared to never-smokers. We found no significant association between occupation, level of education, neighborhood income and the risk of being seropositive. Symptoms most strongly associated with seropositivity were anosmia/dysgeusia, loss of appetite, fever, fatigue and myalgia and/or arthralgia. Thirteen percent of seropositive participants reported no symptoms.ConclusionsOur results confirm a low population seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after the first wave in Geneva, a region hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Socioeconomic factors were not associated with seropositivity in this sample. The elderly and young children were less frequently seropositive, though it is not clear how biology and behaviors shape these differences. These specificities should be considered when assessing the need for targeted public health measures.

Background Carceral facilities are epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic, placing incarcerated people at an elevated risk of COVID-19 infection. Due to the initial limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, all states have developed allocation plans that outline a phased distribution. This study uses document analysis to compare the relative prioritization of incarcerated people, correctional staff, and other groups at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and morbidity. Methods and findings We conducted a document analysis of the vaccine dissemination plans of all 50 US states and the District of Columbia using a triple-coding method. Documents included state COVID-19 vaccination plans and supplemental materials on vaccine prioritization from state health department websites as of December 31, 2020. We found that 22% of states prioritized incarcerated people in Phase 1, 29% of states in Phase 2, and 2% in Phase 3, while 47% of states did not explicitly specify in which phase people who are incarcerated will be eligible for vaccination. Incarcerated people were consistently not prioritized in Phase 1, while other vulnerable groups who shared similar environmental risk received this early prioritization. States’ plans prioritized in Phase 1: prison and jail workers (49%), law enforcement (63%), seniors (65+ years, 59%), and long-term care facility residents (100%). Conclusions This study demonstrates that states’ COVID-19 vaccine allocation plans do not prioritize incarcerated people and provide little to no guidance on vaccination protocols if they fall under other high-risk categories that receive earlier priority. Deprioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination misses a crucial opportunity for COVID-19 mitigation. It also raises ethical and equity concerns. As states move forward with their vaccine distribution, further work must be done to prioritize ethical allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to incarcerated people.

BackgroundCommunity health worker (CHW) programs are believed to be poorly coordinated, poorly integrated into national health systems, and lacking long-term support. Duplication of services, fragmentation, and resource limitations may have impeded the potential impact of CHWs for achieving HIV goals. This study assesses mediators of a more harmonized approach to implementing large-scale CHW programs for HIV in the context of complex health systems and multiple donors.Methods and findingsWe undertook four country case studies in Lesotho, Mozambique, South Africa, and Swaziland between August 2015 and May 2016. We conducted 60 semistructured interviews with donors, government officials, and expert observers involved in CHW programs delivering HIV services. Interviews were triangulated with published literature, country reports, national health plans, and policies. Data were analyzed based on 3 priority areas of harmonization (coordination, integration, and sustainability) and 5 components of a conceptual framework (the health issue, intervention, stakeholders, health system, and context) to assess facilitators and barriers to harmonization of CHW programs. CHWs supporting HIV programs were found to be highly fragmented and poorly integrated into national health systems. Stakeholders generally supported increasing harmonization, although they recognized several challenges and disadvantages to harmonization. Key facilitators to harmonization included (i) a large existing national CHW program and recognition of nongovernmental CHW programs, (ii) use of common incentives and training processes for CHWs, (iii) existence of an organizational structure dedicated to community health initiatives, and (iv) involvement of community leaders in decision-making. Key barriers included a wide range of stakeholders and lack of ownership and accountability of non-governmental CHW programs. Limitations of our study include subjectively selected case studies, our focus on decision-makers, and limited generalizability beyond the countries analyzed.ConclusionCHW programs for HIV in Southern Africa are fragmented, poorly integrated, and lack long-term support. We provide 5 policy recommendations to harmonize CHW programs in order to strengthen and sustain the role of CHWs in HIV service delivery.

ObjectivesTransgender women (TW) are highly burdened by HIV infection in the USA. Research is needed into drivers of the HIV epidemic for TW, including longitudinal studies to identify risks for incident HIV infection and optimal intervention targets. This formative research sought to understand TW’s experiences with, perceptions of and barriers and facilitators to HIV research participation to inform future research implementation.DesignBetween August 2017 and January 2018, five online synchronous computer-mediated focus groups were conducted in English and two in Spanish. Recruitment used a mixed format of technology, such as geotargeted social media, and non-technology infused methods, such as peer referrals. Maximum variation sampling was used to enrol participants across a wide range of characteristics. Qualitative codes were iteratively developed and applied to focus group discussion transcripts by independent analysts.SettingParticipants were recruited from Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Miami, New York City and Washington D.C.ParticipantsParticipants identified as TW≥18 years and resided in one of the six metropolitan areas or outlying regions. 33 participants elected to partake in English focus groups and eight participated in Spanish-led groups.ResultsThe geographically diverse sample had a mean age of 41.1 years (SD=13.6), and 34% identified as Black African American and 29% as Hispanic/Latina. Social and economic factors were found to shape HIV research participation for TW. Barriers to HIV research participation included limited research opportunities, mistrust, fear of mistreatment, safety and confidentiality, competing priorities and HIV stigma. Facilitators to HIV research participation were peer involvement and engagement, monetary and non-monetary incentives, flexibility and choices, multiple modalities and methods, and transcenteredness.ConclusionIt is critical to address the social and economic vulnerabilities surrounding HIV research participation for TW. Results from this study can inform the design and implementation of gender-affirming and culturally tailored approaches to HIV research with TW.