Mobile outreach testing for COVID-19 in twenty homeless shelters in Toronto, Canada

  1. Tara Kiran
  2. Amy Craig-Neil
  3. Paul Das
  4. Joel Lockwood
  5. Ri Wang
  6. Nikki Nathanielsz
  7. Esther Rosenthal
  8. Carolyn Snider
  9. Stephen W. Hwang

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

It is unclear what the best strategy is for detecting COVID-19 among homeless shelter residents and what individual factors are associated with positivity.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart audit obtaining repeated cross-sectional data from outreach testing done at homeless shelters between April 1 st and July 31 st , 2020 in Toronto, Canada. We compared the positivity rate for shelters tested because of an outbreak (at least one known case) versus surveillance (no known cases). A patient-level analysis examined differences in demographic, health, and behavioural characteristics of residents who did and did not test positive for COVID-19.

Findings

One thousand nasopharyngeal swabs were done on 872 unique residents at 20 shelter locations. Among the 504 tests done in outbreak settings, 69 (14%) were positive and 1 (0.2%) was indeterminate. Among the 496 tests done for surveillance, 11 (2%) were positive and none were indeterminate. Shelter residents who tested positive were significantly less likely to have a health insurance card (54% vs 72%, p=0.03) or have visited another shelter in the last 14 days (0% vs 18%, p<0.01) compared to those who tested negative; There was no association between COVID-19 positivity and medical history (p=0.40) or symptoms (p=0.43).

Interpretation

Our findings support testing of asymptomatic shelter residents for COVID-19 when a positive case is identified at the same shelter but suggest limited utility of testing all shelter residents in the absence of a known case. Visiting another shelter in the last 14 days is associated with a decreased risk of COVID-19 positivity.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.23.20235465: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was reviewed and approved by the Unity Health Toronto Research Ethics Board.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.23.20235465v1 on medRxiv