ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Health equity in COVID-19 testing among patients of a large national pharmacy chain.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Several social determinants of health and other structural factors drive racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 risk, morbidity, and mortality. Public-private collaborations with community pharmacies have been successful in expanding access to COVID-19 testing and reaching historically underserved communities. The objectives of this study were to describe individuals who sought testing for COVID-19 at a national community pharmacy chain and to understand potential racial and ethnic inequities in testing access, positivity, and infection with emerging variants of concern. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of individuals aged ≥18 who were tested for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) at a Walgreens pharmacy or Walgreen-affiliated mass testing site between May 1, 2021 and February 28, 2022. Positivity was defined as the proportion of positive tests among all administered tests. A geographically balanced random subset of positive tests underwent whole genome sequencing to identify specific viral variants (alpha, delta, and omicron). Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the likelihood of testing positive and testing positive with an emerging variant of concern across race and ethnicity groups. Results: A total of 18,576,360 tests were analyzed (16.0% tests were positive for COVID-19; 59.5% of tests were from White individuals and 13.1% were from Black individuals). American Indian or Alaska Native (OR = 1.12; 95%CI = 1.10-1.13), Hispanic or Latino (1.20; 95%CI = 1.120, 1.21), and Black (1.12; 95%CI = 1.12, 1.13) individuals were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 compared to White individuals. Non-White individuals were also more likely to test positive for emerging variants of concern (e.g., Black individuals were 3.34 (95%CI = 3.14-3.56) times more likely to test positive for omicron compared to White individuals during the transition period from delta to omicron). Discussion: Using a national database of testing data, we found racial and ethnic differences in the likelihood of testing positive for COVID-19 and testing positive for emerging viral strains. These results demonstrate the feasibility of public-private collaborations with local pharmacies and pharmacy chains to support pandemic response and reach harder to reach populations with important health services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.