National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report
Latest available findings on quality of and access to health care
Data
- Data Infographics
- Data Visualizations
- Data Tools
- Data Innovations
- All-Payer Claims Database
- Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)
- Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)
- AHRQ Quality Indicator Tools for Data Analytics
- State Snapshots
- United States Health Information Knowledgebase (USHIK)
- Data Sources Available from AHRQ
Search All Research Studies
AHRQ Research Studies
Sign up: AHRQ Research Studies Email updates
Research Studies is a compilation of published research articles funded by AHRQ or authored by AHRQ researchers.
Results
1 to 5 of 5 Research Studies DisplayedJenkins JL, Hsu EB, Zhang A
Current evidence for infection prevention and control interventions in emergency medical services: a scoping review.
This study’s aim was to summarize current evidence from the United States on the effectiveness of practices and interventions for preventing, recognizing, and controlling occupationally acquired infectious diseases in Emergency Medical Service (EMS) clinicians. A database search was conducted for literature published January 2006 through March 15, 2022 to search for studies in the United States that involved EMS clinicians and firefighters, reported on one or more workplace practices or interventions that prevented or controlled infectious diseases, and included outcome measures. Eleven observational studies reported on infection prevention and control (IPC) practices providing evidence that hand hygiene, standard precautions, mandatory vaccine policies, and on-site vaccine clinics are effective. Less frequent handwashing and less frequent hand hygiene after glove use were positively correlated with nasal colonization of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) or PPE breach were correlated with higher severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity and virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity. Workers were more likely to be vaccinated against influenza if their employer offered the vaccine. Vaccination rates for H1N1 influenza increased with the use of active, targeted education modules.
AHRQ-funded; 75Q80120D00003.
Citation: Jenkins JL, Hsu EB, Zhang A .
Current evidence for infection prevention and control interventions in emergency medical services: a scoping review.
Prehosp Disaster Med 2023 Jun; 38(3):371-77. doi: 10.1017/s1049023x23000389..
Keywords: COVID-19, Emergency Department, Evidence-Based Practice, Prevention, Public Health, Infectious Diseases
Holmer HK, Mackey K, Fiordalisi CV
Major update 2: antibody response and risk for reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection-final update of a living, rapid review.
This paper is a final updated living rapid review to synthesize evidence on the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response and reinfection risk with a focus on gaps identified in the author’s prior reports. A literature review was done for English-language cohort studies evaluating IgG antibody duration at least 12 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the antibody response among immunocompromised adults, predictors of nonseroconversion, and reinfection risk. Study data was extracted and two investigators rated quality. Most adults had IgG antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection at time points greater than 12 months. Although most immunocompromised adults develop antibodies, the overall proportion with antibodies is lower compared with immunocompetent adults. Prior infection provided substantial, sustained protection against symptomatic reinfection with the Delta variant (high strength of evidence) and reduced the risk for severe disease due to Omicron variant (moderate strength of evidence). Prior infection was less protective against reinfection with Omicron overall (moderate strength of evidence), but protection from earlier variants waned rapidly (low strength of evidence).
AHRQ-funded; 290201700003C.
Citation: Holmer HK, Mackey K, Fiordalisi CV .
Major update 2: antibody response and risk for reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection-final update of a living, rapid review.
Ann Intern Med 2023 Jan; 176(1):85-91. doi: 10.7326/m22-1745..
Keywords: COVID-19, Evidence-Based Practice, Infectious Diseases, Risk
Arkhipova-Jenkins I, Helfand M, Armstrong C
Antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection and implications for immunity : a rapid living review.
This rapid literature review synthesizes evidence on the prevalence, levels, and durability of detectable antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection and whether the antibodies confer natural immunity. Seven databases were searched from January 1 to December 15, 2020, limited to peer-reviewed publications in English. Two investigators extracted study data and rated quality. Moderate-strength evidence suggested that most adults develop detectable levels of IgM and IgG antibodies after infection with SARS-CoV-2 and IgG levels peak approximately 25 days after symptom onset and can remain detectable for at least 120 days. Moderate-strength evidence suggested that IgM levels peak at approximately 20 days and then decline. There is low-strength evidence that most adults generate neutralizing antibodies. Reasons why some adults do not develop antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 are unclear.
AHRQ-funded; 290201700003C.
Citation: Arkhipova-Jenkins I, Helfand M, Armstrong C .
Antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection and implications for immunity : a rapid living review.
Ann Intern Med 2021 Jun;174(6):811-21. doi: 10.7326/m20-7547..
Keywords: COVID-19, Infectious Diseases, Genetics, Evidence-Based Practice
Chou R, Dana T, Jungbauer R
Masks for prevention of respiratory virus infections, including SARS-CoV-2, in health care and community settings : a living rapid review.
This study examined the effectiveness of N95, surgical, and cloth masks in community and health care settings for preventing respiratory virus infections, including coronavirus. The effects of reuse or extended use of N95 masks was also studied. The authors used multiple electronic databases, including the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 2020), and reference lists. Randomized trials of masks and risks for respiratory virus infection were included. The studies were abstracted and methodological limitations were assessed by one reviewer, with a second reviewer providing verification. Thirty-nine studies with 33,867 participants were included. No studies were found that evaluated reuse or extended use of N95 masks. The studies showed that COVID-19 and MERS probably decreased with use versus nonuse and possibly decreased with N95 versus surgical mask use. Random trials in community settings found not much difference between N95 versus surgical masks. The studies’ findings were not definitive.
AHRQ-funded; 290201500009I.
Citation: Chou R, Dana T, Jungbauer R .
Masks for prevention of respiratory virus infections, including SARS-CoV-2, in health care and community settings : a living rapid review.
Ann Intern Med 2020 Oct 6;173(7):542-55. doi: 10.7326/m20-3213..
Keywords: COVID-19, Respiratory Conditions, Infectious Diseases, Prevention, Public Health, Evidence-Based Practice
Bartsch SM, O'Shea KJ, Ferguson MC
Vaccine efficacy needed for a COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine to prevent or stop an epidemic as the sole intervention.
This study examined the needed efficacy and coverage of a COVID-19 vaccine to prevent or stop the pandemic. Simulation experiments were conducted at 60-80% efficacy rates. At 60% efficacy, vaccination coverage needs to be 100%. If the coverage rate is reduced to 75%, the efficacy needs to be 70% and up to 80% when coverage drops to 60%. These findings show that the vaccine needs to have at least an efficacy rate of 70% to prevent an epidemic and at least 80% to extinguish an epidemic without any other measures such as social distancing.
AHRQ-funded; HS023317.
Citation: Bartsch SM, O'Shea KJ, Ferguson MC .
Vaccine efficacy needed for a COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine to prevent or stop an epidemic as the sole intervention.
Am J Prev Med 2020 Oct;59(4):493-503. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.06.011..
Keywords: Vaccination, COVID-19, Public Health, Prevention, Evidence-Based Practice, Infectious Diseases