Qualitative Evaluation of RADx-UP Projects Addressing COVID-19 Testing Disparities Among Underserved Populations

In this article, we present findings from a May 2022 to March 2023 qualitative evaluation of Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics-Underserved Populations (RADx-UP) projects addressing COVID-19 testing disparities among underserved populations. Interviews with academic and community partners from 13 RADx-UP projects revealed that despite the pandemic, projects were able to build trust and relationships with underserved populations. By prioritizing community voices during a public health emergency, RADx-UP projects improved health equity and pandemic preparedness in these communities, successfully conducted community-engaged research, and built long-lasting community partnerships. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print March 28, 2024:e1-e6. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307632)

How to Develop a Qualitative Evaluation Plan for a Complex National Intervention: Key Steps and Reflections from the RADx-UP Program

This article describes the formative process of developing and implementing a Qualitative Evaluation Plan (QEP) for a large-scale, National Institute of Health (NIH) supported program: Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics — Underserved Populations (RADx-UP). RADx-UP includes over 137 projects in the United States that aim to ensure that all Americans have access to timely, accurate diagnostics for COVID-19, with a specific focus on populations the pandemic disproportionately affects. As part of a comprehensive, mixed-methods strategic evaluation plan, our team developed the QEP. We employed qualitative methods to understand RADx-UP academic and community partners’ experiences implementing community-engaged research strategies, and to understand how projects addressed COVID-19 outreach, testing, and response efforts in-depth. This paper describes how our evaluation team developed the QEP in three phases. Within these phases, we describe our processes related to planning the QEP, sampling from a diverse frame of projects, creating interview guides, collecting interview data, analyzing data, and disseminating findings. We provide our key takeaways and lessons learned from creating a QEP for a large-scale research initiative that other researchers may consider when creating similar evaluation plans

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health