17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multidisciplinary Community-Based Investigation of a COVID-19 Outbreak Among Marshallese and Hispanic/Latino Communities — Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas, March–June 2020

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          By June 2020, Marshallese and Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) persons in Benton and Washington counties of Arkansas had received a disproportionately high number of diagnoses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite representing approximately 19% of these counties’ populations ( 1 ), Marshallese and Hispanic persons accounted for 64% of COVID-19 cases and 57% of COVID-19–associated deaths. Analyses of surveillance data, focus group discussions, and key-informant interviews were conducted to identify challenges and propose strategies for interrupting transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Challenges included limited native-language health messaging, high household occupancy, high employment rate in the poultry processing industry, mistrust of the medical system, and changing COVID-19 guidance. Reducing the COVID-19 incidence among communities that suffer disproportionately from COVID-19 requires strengthening the coordination of public health, health care, and community stakeholders to provide culturally and linguistically tailored public health education, community-based prevention activities, case management, care navigation, and service linkage. All laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in Benton and Washington counties in the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) database reported during March 11–June 13, 2020, were included in these analyses. Community engagement was conducted during June 15–July 3, 2020, to identify challenges to interrupting SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Based on information from the community and ADH, all Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons in Benton and Washington counties were considered Marshallese. Marshallese persons come from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a sovereign nation and part of the Compact of Free Association. The Marshallese population has higher rates of some adverse health outcomes because of long-standing systemic factors, including poverty, poor access to care, and a nuclear bomb testing program during the Cold War ( 2 ). Three focus groups with Marshallese community members (26 total participants) and three with Hispanic community members (30 total participants) were conducted to understand drivers of transmission and determine community-level perspectives and needs related to COVID-19. Separate focus groups including students, community members, and faith leaders were held online and in-person in English, Spanish, and Marshallese. Two churches and 21 businesses were visited across both counties, and key-informant interviews were conducted with Marshallese and Hispanic community leaders. Notes were taken during focus group discussions and key-informant interviews; next, two CDC team members reached consensus of the themes presented by the Hispanic and Marshallese communities independently. Themes were reviewed and brought to consensus with other team members present at the activity (Box). Quantitative analyses were conducted using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute). This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy.* BOX Themes* identified from six focus group discussions with Marshallese and Hispanic or Latino communities of Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas, June 15–July 3, 2020 † Concern about family and community Confusion and anxiety about testing and getting results Actively involved in COVID-19 education, mitigation, and support services Assembled task forces and were tracking cases and deaths in their populations Need for increased understanding and awareness about all aspects of prevention, testing, isolation, and treatment of COVID-19 Inconsistent messages from authorities, reopening the state, and communication barriers led to miscommunications and misunderstandings Need more knowledge of health care systems, resources, and support services to access and navigate Need more translated communication and resources describing Modes of transmission of COVID-19 How specific prevention behaviors decrease COVID-19 risk Factors that increase risk for COVID-19–associated complications or death Testing, including how to get results When to seek emergency care Messaging needs to come from local sources in a variety of ways Messaging needs to be repeated Actual and perceived barriers to testing, health care, and support services Lack of knowledge on availability of resources, both typical and COVID-19–specific Lack of knowledge or understanding on how to access resources that are available Language barriers Lack of primary health care (affects health as well as knowledge of available resources and how to access them) Avoidance of health care systems and reluctance to seek care (Marshallese only) Barriers to social distancing Living in high-occupancy households Working jobs where they cannot isolate • Financial constraints, lack resources or social safety nets (e.g., extended family is not nearby, lack of connections to the local community) Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * All themes apply to both communities unless specified otherwise. † The outbreak study period (March 11–June 13, 2020) preceded the community engagement study period (June 15–July 3, 2020). Among a total of 3,436 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in Benton and Washington counties during March 11–June 13, 647 (19%) occurred among Marshallese persons and 1,554 (45%) among Hispanic persons (Table). Incidences among Marshallese (8,390 per 100,000 persons) and Hispanic persons (1,795 per 100,000) were 71 and 15 times higher, respectively, than incidence among non-Hispanic White (White) persons (118 per 100,000). Approximately one half of COVID-19 cases occurred among males (48% in both groups), and the highest percentage of cases occurred among persons aged 25–44 years (Marshallese, 40%; Hispanic, 35%). Poultry processing † was the most frequently reported occupation among Marshallese (28%) and Hispanic (40%) persons with COVID-19. Overall, 181 (5%) COVID-19 patients were hospitalized across all groups. Compared with the rate of hospitalization in White persons (eight per 100,000), rates were higher among Marshallese persons (765 per 100,000) and Hispanic persons (87 per 100,000); mortality was also higher among Marshallese (130 per 100,000) and Hispanic persons (six per 100,000) than among White persons (two per 100,000). A higher proportion of White persons with COVID-19 were aged ≥65 years (17%) compared with Marshallese or Hispanic persons with COVID-19 (5% aged ≥65 years). However, rates were not age-adjusted because of an absence of accurate population estimates by age for these counties. Analyses of addresses identified 79 households with four or more COVID-19 cases, totaling 390 cases, or 11% of all cases; 35% of persons in household clusters identified as Marshallese and 54% as Hispanic. In 30 (38%) of the 79 household clusters, the initial cases occurred in poultry workers; in the remaining 49 clusters, 18 (37%) included at least one poultry worker with COVID-19. TABLE Characteristics of persons with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, by race/ethnicity — Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas, March 11–June 13, 2020* Characteristic No. (%), [rate]† Total Marshallese Hispanic/Latino White, non-Hispanic Other, non-Hispanic Population 7,712 § (2) 86,581 (17) 365,839 (72) 49,437 (10) 509,569 Laboratory-confirmed cases 647 (19) [8,390] 1,554 (45) [1,795] 432 (13) [118] 803 (23) [1,620] 3,436 [670] Sex¶ Female 331 (52) 811 (52) 214 (50) 371 (46) 1,727 (51) Male 310 (48) 738 (48) 217 (50) 427 (54) 1,692 (49) Age group (yrs) <18 165 (26) 275 (18) 34 (8) 174 (22) 648 (19) 18–24 74 (11) 194 (12) 51 (12) 103 (13) 422 (12) 25–44 260 (40) 545 (35) 159 (37) 307 (38) 1,271 (37) 45–64 118 (18) 464 (30) 115 (27) 179 (22) 876 (25) ≥65 30 (5) 76 (5) 73 (17) 40 (5) 219 (6) Employment** Poultry work 152 (28) 574 (40) 57 (14) 137 (19) 920 (30) Nonpoultry work†† 111 (20) 570 (40) 194 (47) 72 (10) 947 (31) Unemployed or retired 76 (14) 105 (7) 36 (9) 13 (2) 230 (7) Unknown 211 (38) 183 (13) 124 (30) 483 (69) 1,001 (32) Clinical course/outcome Hospitalized 59 (9) [765] 75 (5) [87] 30 (7) [8] 17 (2) [34] 181 [36] Died 10 (2) [130] 5 (0) [6] 8 (2) [2] 3 (0) [6] 26 [5] Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * The outbreak study period (March 11–June 13, 2020) preceded the community engagement study period (June 15–July 3, 2020). † Cases per 100,000 population; rates reported for laboratory confirmed cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. § 2010 U.S. Census population estimate; this number is assumed to be an underestimate based on reports of school enrollment. ¶ Totals for sex do not sum to the total number of cases because of missing data. ** Totals for employment do not sum to the total number of cases because person aged ≤18 years were excluded. †† Nonpoultry work includes all other types of employment (e.g., food service, customer service, health care, construction, self-employed, teaching, and other factory or office work). Focus group discussions and key-informant interviews revealed that although Marshallese and Hispanic persons were concerned about COVID-19, prevention and mitigation measures were not consistently implemented (Box). High-occupancy households were common in both communities, making quarantine and isolation difficult. Participants reported that staying home from work and seeking medical care were not economically viable. Both groups reported low utilization of medical care. Marshallese persons reported a strong distrust of and anxiety around Western medicine, especially hospitals. Hospital isolation policies and the limited availability of bilingual staff members increased anxiety, confusion, and mistrust. Participants in both communities reported little awareness of public health messaging and low knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 transmission and disease characteristics. Participants also reported being unaware of or unsure about how to access support services available in the local community, leading to confusion around prevention, testing, and services. Participants reported that they typically received information from social networks and on social media. Changing COVID-19 guidance, especially related to reopening, decreased the sense of urgency and increased confusion around the need to continue prevention and mitigation practices. Business owners reported concerns about difficulty enforcing compliance with new guidance. Participants expressed confusion about the meaning and necessity of isolation and quarantine, the difference between the two, and what they needed to do to return to work. Discussion Marshallese and Hispanic communities in two Arkansas counties experienced disproportionate COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality: COVID-19 incidence, hospitalization rate, and mortality among Marshallese persons were 71 times, 96 times, and 65 times higher, respectively, than rates among White persons. Similarly, COVID-19 incidence, hospitalization rate, and mortality among Hispanic persons were 15 times, 11 times, and three times higher, respectively, than rates among White persons. Disparities in COVID-19 outcomes are likely influenced by long-standing systemic inequities in social determinants of health that have left racial and ethnic minority populations with high rates of underlying conditions ( 3 , 4 ) and increased risk for COVID-19–associated illness and death ( 5 , 6 ). Racial and ethnic minority groups are more likely to work where physical distancing is not possible ( 5 , 7 ) and where COVID-19 incidence is high ( 5 ) such as within the poultry processing industry, which relies disproportionately on employees from racial and ethnic minority groups ( 8 ). In addition, high household occupancy is associated with both low income and COVID-19–associated deaths ( 5 ). In the United States, low English fluency has been associated with high COVID-19 incidence ( 5 , 6 , 9 ). Marshallese and Hispanic persons reported a lack of native language information. In addition, Marshallese and Hispanic participants reported limited use of health care systems. Lack of native language messaging from trusted sources (peers, social media, and community and faith-based organizations) in their native languages, low familiarity with health care systems, and an urgent and evolving health crisis combined to create overall confusion regarding prevention, testing, treatment, and availability of support services. The Marshallese community also indicated high levels of preexisting medical mistrust. Current restrictions on hospital visitors, few Marshallese-speaking medical staff members, and an inconsistently available COVID-19 interpretation call-line compounded mistrust, resulting in delayed medical treatment for COVID-19. To slow community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Marshallese and Hispanic communities a number of public health actions, based on focus group input, might increase community buy-in, utilization of health care services, and organizing efforts to slow the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and decrease duplication of effort. Enhancing coordination of culturally and linguistically tailored outreach, health education, and support services to communities by public health, health care, and community stakeholders might improve the quality and timeliness of information and increase the number of trusted sources who share reliable public health information, leading to increased awareness of risks and adoption of recommended prevention behaviors. Accessible public health communication that does not rely on literacy (in English or native languages), with an emphasis on social media, testimonials, and short videos might increase effective use of information. Beneficial public health topics include factors that can increase or decrease COVID-19 risk and when emergency care should be sought. Also, community partners might be more aware of the social and cultural needs and concerns of the communities and can more closely monitor use of COVID-19 mitigation behaviors, health care, and support services for possible gaps. In addition, policies that allow for workers to miss work for testing, isolation, and quarantine are recommended. The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, information regarding underlying medical conditions was incomplete; therefore, epidemiologic analysis in the context of general health status was not possible. Second, the age distribution for Marshallese and Hispanic persons with COVID-19 was younger than that for White persons with COVID-19; controlling for age would likely widen the disparities related to the adverse outcomes of hospitalization and death. Third, self-reported occupation might have led to misclassification of employment. Fourth, in clusters, the initial case was inferred from symptom onset date, specimen collection date, or case report date; therefore, true initial cases might be incorrectly identified. Finally, the Marshallese and Hispanic persons who participated in the focus groups and key-informant interviews might not be representative of their communities. Communities that suffer disproportionately from COVID-19, especially those affected by long-standing inequities in social determinants of health, need culturally and linguistically tailored public health education, community-based prevention activities, case management, care navigation, and service linkage. Such assistance, paired with a strong coordination of stakeholders, should encourage community acceptance and adoption of prevention and mitigation methods and include opportunities for community feedback to ensure that messaging and services are reaching target populations. Summary What is already known about this topic? Inequities in social determinants of health have put racial and ethnic minority groups at increased risk for COVID-19 and associated mortality. What is added by this report? Marshallese and Hispanic persons represented approximately 19% of the population but accounted for 64% of COVID-19 cases and 57% of associated deaths in two Arkansas counties. Contributing factors include lack of relevant health communications, limited coordination between stakeholders, mistrust of the medical system, financial need to work, and household density. What are the implications for public health practice? Reducing COVID-19 disparities requires strengthening the coordination of public health, health care, and community stakeholders to provide tailored health education, community-based prevention activities, case management, care navigation, and service linkage.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Risk for COVID-19 infection and death among Latinos in the United States: Examining heterogeneity in transmission dynamics

          Abstract: Objectives Ascertain COVID-19 transmission dynamics among Latino communities nationally. Methods We compared predictors of COVID-19 cases and deaths between disproportionally Latino counties (>17.8% Latino population) and all other counties through May 11, 2020. Adjusted Rate Ratios were estimated using COVID-19 cases and deaths via zero-inflated binomial regression models. Results COVID-19 diagnoses rates were greater in Latino counties nationally (90.9 vs. 82.0 per 100,000). In multivariable analysis, COVID-19 cases were greater in Northeastern and Midwestern Latino counties (aRR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11–1.84 and aRR 1.70, 95% CI 1.57–1.85, respectively). COVID-19 deaths were greater in Midwestern Latino counties (aRR, 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.34). COVID-19 diagnoses were associated with counties with greater monolingual Spanish speakers, employment rates, heart disease deaths, less social distancing, and days since the first reported case. COVID-19 deaths were associated with household occupancy density, air pollution, employment, days since the first reported case, and age (fewer <35yo). Conclusions COVID-19 risks and deaths among Latino populations differ by region. Structural factors place Latino populations and particularly monolingual Spanish speakers at elevated risk for COVID-19 acquisition.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Impact of Social Determinants of Health on the Emerging COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States

            A novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) caused a global pandemic in the months following the first four cases reported in Wuhan, China, on December 29, 2019. The elderly, immunocompromised, and those with preexisting conditions—such as asthma, cardiovascular disease (CVD), hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD), or obesity—experience higher risk of becoming severely ill if infected with the virus. Systemic social inequality and discrepancies in socioeconomic status (SES) contribute to higher incidence of asthma, CVD, hypertension, CKD, and obesity in segments of the general population. Such preexisting conditions bring heightened risk of complications for individuals who contract the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) from the virus (2019-nCoV)—also known as “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2). In order to help vulnerable groups during times of a health emergency, focus must be placed at the root of the problem. Studying the social determinants of health (SDOH), and how they impact disadvantaged populations during times of crisis, will help governments to better manage health emergencies so that every individual has equal opportunity to staying healthy. This review summarizes the impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Update: COVID-19 Among Workers in Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities ― United States, April–May 2020

              On July 7, 2020, this report was posted online as an MMWR Early Release. Meat and poultry processing facilities face distinctive challenges in the control of infectious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ( 1 ). COVID-19 outbreaks among meat and poultry processing facility workers can rapidly affect large numbers of persons. Assessment of COVID-19 cases among workers in 115 meat and poultry processing facilities through April 27, 2020, documented 4,913 cases and 20 deaths reported by 19 states ( 1 ). This report provides updated aggregate data from states regarding the number of meat and poultry processing facilities affected by COVID-19, the number and demographic characteristics of affected workers, and the number of COVID-19–associated deaths among workers, as well as descriptions of interventions and prevention efforts at these facilities. Aggregate data on confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths among workers identified and reported through May 31, 2020, were obtained from 239 affected facilities (those with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 case in one or more workers) in 23 states.* COVID-19 was confirmed in 16,233 workers, including 86 COVID-19–related deaths. Among 14 states reporting the total number of workers in affected meat and poultry processing facilities (112,616), COVID-19 was diagnosed in 9.1% of workers. Among 9,919 (61%) cases in 21 states with reported race/ethnicity, 87% occurred among racial and ethnic minority workers. Commonly reported interventions and prevention efforts at facilities included implementing worker temperature or symptom screening and COVID-19 education, mandating face coverings, adding hand hygiene stations, and adding physical barriers between workers. Targeted workplace interventions and prevention efforts that are appropriately tailored to the groups most affected by COVID-19 are critical to reducing both COVID-19–associated occupational risk and health disparities among vulnerable populations. Implementation of these interventions and prevention efforts † across meat and poultry processing facilities nationally could help protect workers in this critical infrastructure industry. Distinctive factors that increase meat and poultry processing workers’ risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, include prolonged close workplace contact with coworkers (within 6 feet for ≥15 minutes) for long time periods (8–12 hour shifts), shared work spaces, shared transportation to and from the workplace, congregate housing, and frequent community contact with fellow workers. Many of these factors might also contribute to ongoing community transmission ( 1 ). To better understand the effect of COVID-19 on workers in these facilities nationwide, on June 6, 2020, CDC requested that state health departments report aggregate surveillance data through May 31, 2020, for workers in all meat and poultry processing facilities affected by COVID-19, including 1) the number and type of such facilities that had reported at least one confirmed COVID-19 case among workers, 2) the total number of workers in affected facilities, 3) the number of workers with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and 4) the number of COVID-19–related worker deaths. States reported COVID-19 cases determined by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists confirmed case definition. § States were asked to report demographic characteristics and symptom status of workers with COVID-19. Testing strategies and methods for collecting symptom data varied by workplace. Proportional distributions for demographic characteristics and symptom status were calculated for cases among workers in 21 states after excluding missing and unknown values; data were missing for sex in 25% of reports, age in 24%, race/ethnicity in 39%, and symptom status in 37%. States also provided information (from direct observation or from management at affected facilities) regarding specified interventions and prevention efforts that were implemented. A random-effects logistic regression model was used to obtain an estimate of the pooled proportion of asymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected but symptoms never develop) or presymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected before symptom onset) infections at the time of testing among workers who had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Five states provided prevalence data from facility-wide testing of 5,572 workers in seven facilities. Modeling was conducted and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, with facilities treated as the random effect, using SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute). Twenty-eight (56%) of 50 states responded, including 23 (82%) that reported at least one confirmed COVID-19 case among meat and poultry processing workers. Overall, 239 facilities reported 16,233 COVID-19 cases and 86 COVID-19–related deaths among workers (Table 1). The median number of affected facilities per state was seven (interquartile range = 3–14). Among 14 states reporting the total number of workers in affected facilities, 9.1% of 112,616 workers received diagnoses of COVID-19. The percentage of workers with COVID-19 ranged from 3.1% to 24.5% per facility. TABLE 1 Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers in meat and poultry facilities — 23 states, April–May 2020* State Type of meat/poultry in affected facilities No. (%) Facilities affected Workers in affected facilities† Confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers COVID-19–related deaths§ Arizona Beef 1 1,750 162 (9.3) 0 (0) Colorado Beef, bison, lamb, poultry 7 7,711 422 (5.5) 9 (2.1) Georgia Poultry 14 16,500 509 (3.1) 1 (0.2) Idaho Beef 2 797 72 (9.0) 0 (0) Illinois Beef, pork, poultry 26 N/A 1,029 (―) 10 (1.0) Kansas Beef, pork, poultry 10 N/A 2,670 (―) 8 (0.3) Kentucky Pork, poultry 7 7,633 559 (7.3) 4 (0.7) Maine Poultry 1 411 50 (12.2) 1 (2.0) Maryland Poultry 2 2,036 208 (10.2) 5 (2.4) Massachusetts Poultry, other 33 N/A 263 (―) 0 (0) Missouri Beef, pork, poultry 9 8,469 745 (8.8) 2 (0.3) Nebraska Beef, pork, poultry 23 26,134 3,438 (13.2) 14 (0.4) New Mexico Beef, pork, poultry 2 550 24 (4.4) 0 (0) Pennsylvania Beef, pork, poultry, other 30 15,548 1,169 (7.5) 8 (0.7) Rhode Island Beef, pork, poultry, other 6 N/A 78 (―) 0 (0) South Carolina Beef, pork, poultry, other 16 N/A 97 (―) 0 (0) South Dakota Beef, pork, poultry 4 6,500 1,593 (24.5) 3 (0.2) Tennessee Pork, poultry, other 7 N/A 640 (―) 2 (0.3) Utah Beef, pork, poultry 4 N/A 67 (―) 1 (1.5) Virginia Pork, poultry, other 14 N/A 1,109 (―) 10 (0.9) Washington Beef, poultry 7 4,452 468 (10.5) 4 (0.9) Wisconsin Beef, pork, veal 14 14,125 860 (6.1) 4 (0.5) Wyoming Beef 0 N/A 1 (―) 0 (0) Total¶ Beef, bison, lamb, pork, poultry, veal, other 239 112,616 16,233 86 Combined total** ― 264 ― 17,358 91 Abbreviations: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; N/A = not available. * Data reported through May 31, 2020. Five states that responded to the data request did not report any laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers in the animal slaughtering and processing industry; 22 states with animal slaughtering and processing facilities did not respond to the data request. The 13 states that contributed to both an earlier assessment and this update provided any updates to previously reported data, in addition to reporting new cases and facilities, through May 31, 2020. † Among 14 of 23 states reporting the number of workers in affected workplaces, 9.1% of workers received diagnoses of COVID-19. § Percentage of deaths among cases. ¶ Data on workers with COVID-19 from 23 states that submitted data to this report. ** Combining data on workers with COVID-19 (1,125), COVID-19–related deaths (five), and COVID-19–affected facilities (25) through April 27 from six states that contributed to an earlier assessment of COVID-19 among meat and poultry processing workers that did not submit updated data to this report (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6918e3.htm?s_cid=mm6918e3_w). Twenty-one states provided information on demographic characteristics and symptom status of workers with COVID-19. Among the 12,100 (75%) and 12,365 (76%) patients with information on sex and age, 7,288 (60%) cases occurred among males, and 5,741 (46%) were aged 40–59 years, respectively (Figure). Among the 9,919 (61%) cases with race/ethnicity reported, 5,584 (56%) were in Hispanics, 1,842 (19%) in non-Hispanic blacks (blacks), 1,332 (13%) in non-Hispanic whites (whites), and 1,161 (12%) in Asians. Symptom status was reported for 10,284 (63%) cases; among these, 9,072 (88%) workers were symptomatic, and 1,212 (12%) were asymptomatic or presymptomatic. FIGURE Characteristics * , † of reported laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers in meat and poultry processing facilities — 21 states, April–May 2020 § Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * The analytic dataset excludes cases reported by states that were missing information on sex (4,133), age (3,868), race/ethnicity (6,314), and symptom status (5,949). White, black, and Asian workers were non-Hispanic; Hispanic workers could be of any race. † Testing strategies and methods for collecting symptom data varied by workplace. Symptom status was available for a single timepoint, at the time of testing or at the time of interview. § Data reported through May 31, 2020. The figure is a bar chart showing characteristics of reported laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers in meat and poultry processing facilities, by sex, age group, race/ethnicity, and symptom status, in 21 states during April–May 2020. Among 239 facilities reporting cases, information on interventions and prevention efforts was available for 111 (46%) facilities from 14 states. Overall, 89 (80%) facilities reported screening workers on entry, 86 (77%) required all workers to wear face coverings, 72 (65%) increased the availability of hand hygiene stations, 70 (63%) educated workers on community spread, and 69 (62%) installed physical barriers between workers (Table 2). Forty-one (37%) of 111 facilities offered testing for SARS-CoV-2 to workers; 24 (22%) reported closing temporarily as an intervention measure. TABLE 2 Interventions and prevention efforts implemented by facilities in response to COVID-19 among workers in 111 meat and poultry processing facilities* —14 states, April–May 2020 † Intervention/Prevention effort COVID-19–affected facilities, no. (%§) Implemented intervention Did not implement intervention Intervention status unknown Worker screening on entry 89 (80) 5 (5) 17 (15) Required universal face covering 86 (77) 5 (5) 20 (18) Added hand hygiene stations 72 (65) 8 (7) 31 (28) Educated employees on community spread 70 (63) 13 (12) 28 (25) Installed physical barriers between workers 69 (62) 17 (15) 25 (23) Staggered shifts 57 (51) 17 (15) 37 (33) Offered SARS-CoV-2 testing to employees¶ 41 (37) 35 (32) 35 (32) Removed financial incentives (e.g., attendance bonuses) 33 (30) 20 (18) 58 (52) Closed facility temporarily 24 (22) 69 (62) 18 (16) Reduced rate of animal processing 23 (21) 14 (12) 74 (67) Decreased crowding of transportation to worksite 17 (15) 10 (9) 84 (76) Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * Affected facilities defined as those having one or more laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among workers. † Based on data collected through May 31, 2020. § Because of rounding, row percentages might not equal 100%. ¶ Testing strategies varied by facility. Among seven facilities that implemented facility-wide testing, the crude prevalence of asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections among 5,572 workers who had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results was 14.4%. The pooled prevalence estimated from the model for the proportion of asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections among workers in meat and poultry processing facilities was 11.2% (95% CI = 0.9%–23.1%). Discussion The animal slaughtering and processing industry employs an estimated 525,000 workers in approximately 3,500 facilities nationwide ( 2 , 3 ). Combining data on workers with COVID-19 and COVID-19–related deaths identified and reported through May 31 from 23 states (16,233 cases; 86 deaths) with data from an earlier assessment through April 27 (1,125 cases; five deaths) ( 1 ) that included data from six states that did not contribute updated data to this report, ¶ at least 17,358 cases and 91 COVID-19–related deaths have occurred among U.S. meat and poultry processing workers. The effects of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minority groups are not yet fully understood; however, current data indicate a disproportionate burden of illness and death among these populations ( 4 , 5 ). Among animal slaughtering and processing workers from the 21 states included in this report whose race/ethnicity were known, approximately 39% were white, 30% were Hispanic, 25% were black, and 6% were Asian.** However, among 9,919 workers with COVID-19 with race/ethnicity reported, approximately 56% were Hispanic, 19% were black, 13% were white, and 12% were Asian, suggesting that Hispanic and Asian workers might be disproportionately affected by COVID-19 in this workplace setting. Ongoing efforts to reduce incidence and better understand the effects of COVID-19 on the health of racial and ethnic minorities are important to ensure that workplace-specific prevention strategies and intervention messages are tailored to those groups most affected by COVID-19. The proportion of asymptomatic or presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections identified in investigations of COVID-19 outbreaks in other high-density settings has ranged from 19% to 88% ( 6 , 7 ). Among cases in workers with known symptom status in this report, 12% of patients were asymptomatic or presymptomatic; however, not all facilities performed facility-wide testing, during which these infections are more likely to be identified. Consequently, many asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections in the overall workforce might have gone unrecognized, and the approximations for disease prevalence in this report might underestimate SARS-CoV-2 infections. Recently derived estimates of the total proportion of asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections from data on COVID-19 investigations among cruise ship passengers and evacuees from Wuhan, China, ranged from 17.9% to 30.8%, respectively ( 8 , 9 ). The estimated proportion of asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections among meat and poultry processing workers (11.2%) is lower than are previously reported estimates and should be reevaluated as more comprehensive facility-wide testing data are reported. In coordination with state and local health agencies, many meat and poultry processing facilities have implemented interventions to reduce transmission or prevent ongoing exposure within the workplace, including offering testing to workers. †† Expanding interventions across these facilities nationwide might help protect workers in this industry. Recognizing the interaction of workplace and community, many facilities have also educated workers about strategies for reducing transmission of COVID-19 outside the workplace. §§ The findings in this report are subject to at least seven limitations. First, only 28 of 50 states responded; 23 states with COVID-19 cases among meat and poultry processing facility workers submitted data for this report. In addition, only facilities with at least one laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19 among workers were included. Thus, these results might not be representative of all U.S. meat and poultry processing facilities and workers. Second, delays in identifying workplace outbreaks and linking cases or deaths to outbreaks might have resulted in an underestimation of the number of affected facilities and cases among workers. Third, data were not reported on variations in testing availability and practices, which might influence the number of cases reported. Fourth, industry data were used for race/ethnicity comparisons; demographic characteristics of total worker populations in affected facilities were not available, limiting the ability to quantify the degree to which some racial and ethnic minority groups might be disproportionately affected by COVID-19 in this industry. Reported frequencies of demographic and symptom data likely underestimate the actual prevalence because of missing data, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn from descriptive analyses. Fifth, information on interventions and prevention efforts was available for a subset of affected facilities and therefore might not be generalizable to all facilities. Information was subject to self-report by facility management, and all available intervention efforts might not have been captured. Further evaluation of the extent of control measures and timing of implementations is needed to assess effectiveness of control measures. Sixth, symptom data collected at facility-wide testing was self-reported and might have been influenced by the presence of employers. Finally, workers in this industry are members of their local communities, and their source of exposure and infection could not be determined; for those living in communities experiencing widespread transmission, exposure might have occurred within the surrounding community as well as at the worksite. High population-density workplace settings such as meat and poultry processing facilities present ongoing challenges to preventing and reducing the risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Collaborative implementation of interventions and prevention efforts, which might include comprehensive testing strategies, could help reduce COVID-19–associated occupational risk. Targeted, workplace-specific prevention strategies are critical to reducing COVID-19–associated health disparities among vulnerable populations Lessons learned from investigating outbreaks of COVID-19 in meat and poultry processing facilities could inform investigations in other food production and agriculture workplaces to help prevent and reduce COVID-19 transmission among all workers in these essential industries. Summary What is already known about this topic? COVID-19 outbreaks among meat and poultry processing facility workers can rapidly affect large numbers of persons. What is added by this report? Among 23 states reporting COVID-19 outbreaks in meat and poultry processing facilities, 16,233 cases in 239 facilities occurred, including 86 (0.5%) COVID-19–related deaths. Among cases with race/ethnicity reported, 87% occurred among racial or ethnic minorities. Commonly implemented interventions included worker screening, source control measures (universal face coverings), engineering controls (physical barriers), and infection prevention measures (additional hand hygiene stations). What are the implications for public health practice? Targeted workplace interventions and prevention efforts that are appropriately tailored to the groups most affected by COVID-19 are critical to reducing both COVID-19–associated occupational risk and health disparities among vulnerable populations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
                MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
                WR
                Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
                Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
                0149-2195
                1545-861X
                04 December 2020
                04 December 2020
                : 69
                : 48
                : 1807-1811
                Affiliations
                CDC COVID-19 Response Team; Arkansas Department of Health; Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Katherine E. Center, qbj1@ 123456cdc.gov .
                Article
                mm6948a2
                10.15585/mmwr.mm6948a2
                7714036
                33270609
                95b62f09-8ab8-46cf-a1da-b294d3297536

                All material in the MMWR Series is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.

                History
                Categories
                Full Report

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content158

                Cited by20

                Most referenced authors168