Association of Vaccine Uptake and COVID-19 Infections among nursing home staff and residents in Missouri, United States

  1. Stephen Scroggins
  2. Matthew Ellis
  3. Enbal Shacham

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Nursing homes (NH) continue to struggle with COVID-19 morbidity and mortality with older adult residents at greater risk of infection due to proximity to other residents, advanced aging-related chronic illnesses, and contact with staff. While many states have prioritized COVID-19 vaccinations among older adults, vaccinations among NH staff vary. The purpose of this study was to quantify the relationship between nursing home staff vaccination uptake and COVID-19 infections among residents. A zero-inflated Poisson regression model was constructed to predict the weekly number of COVID-19 cases among Missouri nursing home residents using data from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. A total of 1,124 COVID-19 infections were reported among 504 NH residents between January 1, 2021 and August 22, 2021. After adjusting for number of total residents, resident vaccine rate, staff quality rating, and respective county COVID-19 rate, for every percent increase in nursing home staff vaccine rate the risk of COVID-19 infections significantly decreased by 13% (IRR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81, 0.93). This study identified that NH staff, likely due to greater mobility, are important to prioritize in vaccination efforts to protect themselves and residents of their facilities from COVID-19 infections. Further, the CMS staff ratings were significant predictors of infection as well, which highlight the structural challenges that exist within and outside the context of a highly infectious and deadly pandemic. These results also provide insights to optimizing vaccination roll-out to best protect our communities’ most vulnerable residents.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.16.21263714v2 on medRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.16.21263714: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.16.21263714v1 on medRxiv