Introduction: The spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) across the United States has highlighted the long-standing nationwide health inequalities with socioeconomically challenged communities experiencing a higher burden of the disease. We assessed the impact of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics on the COVID-19 prevalence across seven selected states (i.e., Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia). Methods: We obtained cumulative COVID-19 cases reported at the neighborhood aggregation level by Departments of Health in selected states on two dates (May 3rd, 2020, and May 30th, 2020) and assessed the correlation between the COVID-19 prevalence and neighborhood characteristics. We developed Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a composite measure to rank neighborhoods by their socioeconomic characteristics, using the 2018 US Census American Community Survey. The higher ADI rank represented more disadvantaged neighborhoods. Results: After controlling for age, gender, and the square mileage of each community we identified Zip-codes with higher ADI (more disadvantaged neighborhoods) in Illinois and Maryland had higher COVID-19 prevalence comparing to zip-codes across the country and in the same state with lower ADI (less disadvantaged neighborhoods) using data on May 3rd. We detected the same pattern across all states except for Florida and Virginia using data on May 30th, 2020. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence that not all Americans are at equal risk for COVID-19. Socioeconomic characteristics of communities appear to be associated with their COVID-19 susceptibility, at least among those study states with high rates of disease.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted communities differentially, with poorer and minority populations being more adversely affected. Prior rural health research suggests such disparities may be exacerbated during the pandemic and in remote parts of the U.S. Objectives To understand the spread and impact of COVID-19 across the U.S., county level data for confirmed cases of COVID-19 were examined by Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and Metropolitan vs. Nonmetropolitan designations from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). These designations were the basis for making comparisons between Urban and Rural jurisdictions. Method Kendall's Tau-B was used to compare effect sizes between jurisdictions on select ADI composites and well researched social determinants of health (SDH). Spearman coefficients and stratified Poisson modeling was used to explore the association between ADI and COVID-19 prevalence in the context of county designation. Results Results show that the relationship between area deprivation and COVID-19 prevalence was positive and higher for rural counties, when compared to urban ones. Family income, property value and educational attainment were among the ADI component measures most correlated with prevalence, but this too differed between county type. Conclusions Though most Americans live in Metropolitan Areas, rural communities were found to be associated with a stronger relationship between deprivation and COVID-19 prevalence. Models predicting COVID-19 prevalence by ADI and county type reinforced this observation and may inform health policy decisions.

Although digital health solutions are increasingly popular in clinical psychiatry, one application that has not been fully explored is the utilization of survey technology to monitor patients outside of the clinic. Supplementing routine care with digital information collected in the “clinical whitespace” between visits could improve care for patients with severe mental illness. This study evaluated the feasibility and validity of using online self-report questionnaires to supplement in-person clinical evaluations in persons with and without psychiatric diagnoses. We performed a rigorous in-person clinical diagnostic and assessment battery in 54 participants with schizophrenia (N = 23), depressive disorder (N = 14), and healthy controls (N = 17) using standard assessments for depressive and psychotic symptomatology. Participants were then asked to complete brief online assessments of depressive (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) and psychotic (Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences) symptoms outside of the clinic for comparison with the ground-truth in-person assessments. We found that online self-report ratings of severity were significantly correlated with the clinical assessments for depression (two assessments used: R = 0.63, p < 0.001; R = 0.73, p < 0.001) and psychosis (R = 0.62, p < 0.001). Our results demonstrate the feasibility and validity of collecting psychiatric symptom ratings through online surveys. Surveillance of this kind may be especially useful in detecting acute mental health crises between patient visits and can generally contribute to more comprehensive psychiatric treatment.

Background: Clozapine is the most effective antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Although serum clozapine levels can help guide treatment, they are underutilized owing to requirements for frequent venous blood draws and lack of immediate results. Methods: Clozapine levels measured with a novel immunoassay technology (which enables point-of-care development) were compared with those measured by standard liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Frozen serum aliquots of 117 samples (N=48 patients with schizophrenia on clozapine; N=24 patients with schizophrenia not on clozapine; N=45 healthy controls) were sent to a national reference laboratory (NRL) for clozapine level determination by LC-MS/MS, and matching samples were subjected to novel immunoassay (three runs). At a later date, another frozen aliquot from the same date was sent to the NRL for repeat testing. Results: The NRL obtained 18 false positive clozapine results (mean 42.39 ± 32.06, range 21–159 ng/mL) in participants not on clozapine (N=3) and healthy controls (N=15). The immunoassay showed no false positive clozapine results. The clozapine levels were correlated between both assays (r=0.84, p <0.0001), despite 16% higher clozapine levels with immunoassay (482.08 ± 270.88 ng/mL immunoassay, 414.98 ± 186.29 ng/mL LC-MS/MS (p=0.03)). Agreement analysis using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) for LC-MS/MS of the two aliquots yielded CCC=0.869; 95% CI=0.690–0.970, whereas higher agreement results were observed for the three runs of immunoassay (CCC=0.99; 95% CI=0.979–0.997). Conclusions: The lack of false positives observed with immunoassay, higher repeat performance agreement, and good correlation with LC-MS/MS may indicate the more robust performance of immunoassay than that of LC-MS/MS clozapine level determination.

Background: Patients with unmet social needs and social determinants of health (SDOH) challenges continue to face a disproportionate risk of increased prevalence of disease, health care use, higher health care costs, and worse outcomes. Some existing predictive models have used the available data on social needs and SDOH challenges to predict health-related social needs or the need for various social service referrals. Despite these one-off efforts, the work to date suggests that many technical and organizational challenges must be surmounted before SDOH-integrated solutions can be implemented on an ongoing, wide-scale basis within most US-based health care organizations. Objective: We aimed to retrieve available information in the electronic health record (EHR) relevant to the identification of persons with social needs and to develop a social risk score for use within clinical practice to better identify patients at risk of having future social needs. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using EHR data (2016-2021) and data from the US Census American Community Survey. We developed a prospective model using current year-1 risk factors to predict future year-2 outcomes within four 2-year cohorts. Predictors of interest included demographics, previous health care use, comorbidity, previously identified social needs, and neighborhood characteristics as reflected by the area deprivation index. The outcome variable was a binary indicator reflecting the likelihood of the presence of a patient with social needs. We applied a generalized estimating equation approach, adjusting for patient-level risk factors, the possible effect of geographically clustered data, and the effect of multiple visits for each patient. Results: The study population of 1,852,228 patients included middle-aged (mean age range 53.76-55.95 years), White (range 324,279/510,770, 63.49% to 290,688/488,666, 64.79%), and female (range 314,741/510,770, 61.62% to 278,488/448,666, 62.07%) patients from neighborhoods with high socioeconomic status (mean area deprivation index percentile range 28.76-30.31). Between 8.28% (37,137/448,666) and 11.55% (52,037/450,426) of patients across the study cohorts had at least 1 social need documented in their EHR, with safety issues and economic challenges (ie, financial resource strain, employment, and food insecurity) being the most common documented social needs (87,152/1,852,228, 4.71% and 58,242/1,852,228, 3.14% of overall patients, respectively). The model had an area under the curve of 0.702 (95% CI 0.699-0.705) in predicting prospective social needs in the overall study population. Previous social needs (odds ratio 3.285, 95% CI 3.237-3.335) and emergency department visits (odds ratio 1.659, 95% CI 1.634-1.684) were the strongest predictors of future social needs. Conclusions: Our model provides an opportunity to make use of available EHR data to help identify patients with high social needs. Our proposed social risk score could help identify the subset of patients who would most benefit from further social needs screening and data collection to avoid potentially more burdensome primary data collection on all patients in a target population of interest.