ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2026
Attendance of Underserved Populations at Field-Based Health Services Events: Application of Quasi-Experimental Methods that Accommodate the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05082935 (Optimizing SARS-CoV-2 Testing and Promotores Interventions to Serve Latinx Communities), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Optimizing SARS-CoV-2 Testing and Promotores Interventions to Serve Latinx Communities
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Introduction to the Special Issue: Innovations and Strategies for Addressing COVID-19 Pandemic Related Challenges in Prevention Science Research in Applied Settings.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the ability to receive health care services. Field-based health services became a logistically feasible alternative to medical center-based care. We compared two different field-based approaches to the delivery of SARS-CoV-2 testing and health education services for Latine communities using a quasi-experimental design that included propensity score matching to accommodate the challenges posed to research by the pandemic. From September 2021 through October 2022, we held 434 testing events, of which 234 used a geolocation approach and 200 used a partner-located approach to determine the location of the health services (n = 68 field sites in Oregon). We hypothesized that partner-located sites would obtain higher numbers of tests collected relative to geolocated sites, and that longer drive times to testing sites would be associated with lower testing rates. There were no differences in the number of tests collected by geolocated versus partner-located sites, controlling for population size and time-varying pandemic vulnerabilities measured as COVID-19 cases and deaths. Prior to propensity score weighting, a longer drive time to the testing site (both site types) was associated with a lower likelihood of total tests (IRR = .87, p < .01, CI [0.54, 0.92]), of Latine tests (IRR = .69, p < .001, CI [0.56, 0.84]), and of male tests collected (IRR = .67, p < .05, CI [0.47, 0.94]). The site's number of prior tests was associated with a significant 2% increase in tests collected and the prior week's number of county deaths was associated with a roughly 30% decrease in the likelihood of tests collected. However, the reduced testing rate when the death rate was higher was less likely in geolocated sites (IRR = 1.55, p < .001, CI [1.20, 2.01]). Implications for the utility of propensity score matching and time-varying covariates to accommodate pandemic challenges posed to research are discussed. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT05082935. Date of registration: 10/15/2021.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.