Effects of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 infection and maternal and neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, but no systematic synthesis of evidence on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy against these outcomes has been undertaken. Thus, we aimed to assess the collective evidence on the effects of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes. PubMed/MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were systematically searched for articles published up to 1 November 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to calculate pooled effects size and 95% confidence interval (CI). We evaluated 30 studies involving 862,272 individuals (308,428 vaccinated and 553,844 unvaccinated). Overall pooled analyses in pregnant women during pregnancy showed reduced risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection by 60% (41%-73%), COVID-19 hospitalisation during pregnancy by 53% (31%-69%), and COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) admission by 82% (12%-99%). Neonates of vaccinated women were 1.78 folds more likely to acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first 2, 4 and 6 months of life during the Omicron period. The risk of stillbirth was reduced by 45% (17%-63%) in association with vaccination (vs. no vaccination) in pregnancy. A decrease of 15% (3%-25%), 33% (14%-48%), and 33% (17%-46%) in the odds of preterm births before 37, 32 and 28 weeks' gestation were associated with vaccination (vs. no vaccination) in pregnancy, respectively. The risk of neonatal ICU admission was significantly lower by 20% following COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy (16%-24%). There was no evidence of a higher risk of adverse outcomes including miscarriage, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, cardiac problems, oligohydramnios, polyhydramnios, unassisted vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery, postpartum haemorrhage, gestational age at delivery, placental abruption, Apgar score at 5 min below 7, low birthweight (<2500 g), very low birthweight (<1500 g), small for gestational age, and neonatal foetal abnormalities. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is safe and highly effective in preventing maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy, without increasing the risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, and is associated with a reduction in stillbirth, preterm births, and neonatal ICU admission. Importantly, maternal vaccination did not reduce the risk of neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first 6 months of life during the Omicron period.

Human Monkeypox: A Comprehensive Narrative Review and Analysis of the Public Health Implications.

Recently, numerous cases of monkeypox were reported from several non-endemic countries in Europe, North America, and Oceania, suggesting an unusual and alarming public health issue, particularly considering that the disease is not directly related to human or animal travels. Attention is currently being drawn to this phenomenon since more than 70% of the global population is no longer vaccinated against smallpox. Indeed, the smallpox vaccination also confers some indirect degree of protection against other poxviruses, including monkeypox. We performed a narrative review to describe the existing literature with regard to monkeypox using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. This review aims to provide updated evidence of findings on the epidemiology, clinical features, diagnosis, management, and prevention of monkeypox, also considering the concurrent zoonotic pandemic caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

Changes in Health-Related Behaviours and Mental Health in a UK Public Sample during the First Set of COVID-19 Public Health Restrictions.

Public health restrictions, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, have had potentially wide-ranging, unintended effects on health-related behaviours such as diet and physical activity and also affected mental health due to reduced social interactions. This study explored how health-related behaviours and mental health were impacted in a sample of the UK public during the first set of COVID-19 public health restrictions. Two online surveys were administered in the UK, one within the first three months of the restrictions (Timepoints 1 (T1-involving pre-pandemic recall) and 2/T2) and another ten weeks later (Timepoint 3/T3). Moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), outdoor time, sitting time, screen time and sexual activity were self-reported. Diet was assessed using the Dietary Instrument for Nutrition Education questionnaire. Mental health was measured using the short-form Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale and Becks' Anxiety and Depression Inventories. Differences between timepoints were explored using the Friedman, Wilcoxon signed-rank, McNemar and McNemar-Bowker tests. Two hundred and ninety-six adults (74% under 65 years old; 65% female) provided data across all timepoints. Between T1 and T2, MVPA, time outdoors and sexual activity decreased while sitting, and screen time increased (p < 0.05). Between T2 and T3, saturated fat intake, MVPA, time outdoors, and mental wellbeing increased while sitting, screen time and anxiety symptoms decreased (p < 0.05). This study found that depending on the level of COVID-19 public health restrictions in place, there appeared to be a varying impact on different health-related behaviours and mental health. As countries emerge from restrictions, it is prudent to direct necessary resources to address these important public health issues.

Changes in Health-Related Behaviours and Mental Health in a UK Public Sample during the First Set of COVID-19 Public Health Restrictions

Public health restrictions, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, have had potentially wide-ranging, unintended effects on health-related behaviours such as diet and physical activity and also affected mental health due to reduced social interactions. This study explored how health-related behaviours and mental health were impacted in a sample of the UK public during the first set of COVID-19 public health restrictions. Two online surveys were administered in the UK, one within the first three months of the restrictions (Timepoints 1 (T1-involving pre-pandemic recall) and 2/T2) and another ten weeks later (Timepoint 3/T3). Moderate–vigorous physical activity (MVPA), outdoor time, sitting time, screen time and sexual activity were self-reported. Diet was assessed using the Dietary Instrument for Nutrition Education questionnaire. Mental health was measured using the short-form Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale and Becks' Anxiety and Depression Inventories. Differences between timepoints were explored using the Friedman, Wilcoxon signed-rank, McNemar and McNemar–Bowker tests. Two hundred and ninety-six adults (74% under 65 years old;65% female) provided data across all timepoints. Between T1 and T2, MVPA, time outdoors and sexual activity decreased while sitting, and screen time increased (p < 0.05). Between T2 and T3, saturated fat intake, MVPA, time outdoors, and mental wellbeing increased while sitting, screen time and anxiety symptoms decreased (p < 0.05). This study found that depending on the level of COVID-19 public health restrictions in place, there appeared to be a varying impact on different health-related behaviours and mental health. As countries emerge from restrictions, it is prudent to direct necessary resources to address these important public health issues.

Comparative safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to influenza vaccines: A pharmacovigilance analysis using WHO international database.

Two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are being rolled out. Despite the high volume of emerging evidence regarding adverse events (AEs) associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, previous studies have thus far been largely based on the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated control, possibly highlighting the AE risks with COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Comparing the safety profile of mRNA vaccinated individuals with otherwise vaccinated individuals would enable a more relevant assessment for the safety of mRNA vaccination. We designed a comparative safety study between 18 755 and 27 895 individuals who reported to VigiBase for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with mRNA COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, respectively, from January 1, 2020, to January 17, 2021. We employed disproportionality analysis to rapidly detect relevant safety signals and compared comparative risks of a diverse span of AEFIs for the vaccines. The safety profile of novel mRNA vaccines was divergent from that of influenza vaccines. The overall pattern suggested that systematic reactions like chill, myalgia, fatigue were more noticeable with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, while injection site reactogenicity events were more prevalent with the influenza vaccine. Compared to the influenza vaccine, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated a significantly higher risk for a few manageable cardiovascular complications, such as hypertensive crisis (adjusted reporting odds ratio [ROR], 12.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.47-65.54), and supraventricular tachycardia (adjusted ROR, 7.94; 95% CI, 2.62-24.00), but lower risk of neurological complications such as syncope, neuralgia, loss of consciousness, Guillain-Barre syndrome, gait disturbance, visual impairment, and dyskinesia. This study has not identified significant safety concerns regarding mRNA vaccination in real-world settings. The overall safety profile patterned a lower risk of serious AEFI following mRNA vaccines compared to influenza vaccines.

Comparative effectiveness of N95, surgical or medical, and non-medical facemasks in protection against respiratory virus infection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of N95, surgical/medical and non-medical facemasks as personal protective equipment against respiratory virus infection. The study incorporated 35 published and unpublished randomized controlled trials and observational studies investigating specific mask effectiveness against influenza virus, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and medRxiv databases for studies published up to 5 February 2021 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020214729). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of respiratory viral infection. The quality of evidence was estimated using the GRADE approach. High compliance to mask-wearing conferred a significantly better protection (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.82) than low compliance. N95 or equivalent masks were the most effective in providing protection against coronavirus infections (OR, 0.30; CI, 0.20-0.44) consistently across subgroup analyses of causative viruses and clinical settings. Evidence supporting the use of medical or surgical masks against influenza or coronavirus infections (SARS, MERS and COVID-19) was weak. Our study confirmed that the use of facemasks provides protection against respiratory viral infections in general; however, the effectiveness may vary according to the type of facemask used. Our findings encourage the use of N95 respirators or their equivalents (e.g., P2) for best personal protection in healthcare settings until more evidence on surgical and medical masks is accrued. This study highlights a substantial lack of evidence on the comparative effectiveness of mask types in community settings.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a New psychosocial intervention to support Independence in Dementia (NIDUS-family) for family carers and people living with dementia in their own homes: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes and are supported to do so by family carers. No interventions have consistently demonstrated improvements to people with dementia's life quality, functioning, or other indices of living as well as possible with dementia. We have co-produced, with health and social care professionals and family carers of people with dementia, a new intervention (NIDUS-family). To our knowledge, NIDUS-family is the first manualised intervention that can be tailored to personal goals of people living with dementia and their families and is delivered by facilitators without clinical training. The intervention utilizes components of behavioural management, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills training, enablement, and environmental adaptations, with modules selected to address dyads' selected goals. We will evaluate the effect of NIDUS-family and usual care on goal attainment, as measured by Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) rated by family carers, compared to usual care alone at 12-month follow-up. We will also determine whether NIDUS-family and usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone over 12 months. METHODS: A randomised, two-arm, single-masked, multi-site clinical trial involving 297 people living with dementia-family carer dyads. Dyads will be randomised 2:1 to receive the NIDUS-family intervention with usual care (n = 199) or usual care alone (n = 98). The intervention group will be offered, over 1 year, via 6-8 video call or telephone sessions (or face to face if COVID-19 restrictions allow in the recruitment period) in the initial 6 months, followed by telephone follow-ups every 1-2 months to support implementation, with a trained facilitator. DISCUSSION: Increasing the time lived at home by people living with dementia is likely to benefit lives now and in the future. Our intervention, which we adapted to include remote delivery prior to trial commencement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, aims to address barriers to living as well and as independently as possible that distress people living with dementia, exacerbate family carer(s) stress, negatively affect relationships, lead to safety risks, and frequently precipitate avoidable moves to a care home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number ISRCTN11425138 . Registered on 7 October 2019.

What are the recommendations for returning athletes who have experienced long term COVID-19 symptoms?

Currently, there is limited research reporting the symptoms of long COVID among athletes, and the recommendations for athletes returning to competition/training who have experienced long COVID symptoms. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the recommendations for returning athletes who have experienced long COVID symptoms. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO under CRD42021265939. Two authors searched the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus from August 2019-July 2021. Search terms included words related to "long COVID", "athlete" and "return". Data extraction was completed for each study by two independent investigators for: (1) first author name; (2) year of publication; (3) journal; (4) Definition of athlete (i.e. elite or non-elite) (5) Recommendations reported. A total of 220 records were found. Following title and abstract screening, 61 studies were eligible for full text screening. Overall, no studies, commentaries, editorials or reviews provided specific recommendations for "long COVID" defined as COVID-19 signs and symptoms lasting for over 4 weeks as a result of COVID-19 infection. In addition, we found no studies which reported symptoms of athletes suffering from long COVID. Despite the lack of evidence, we did find eight separate professional recommendations for managing "long-term effects" and "ongoing" or "prolonged" symptoms and COVID-19 complications among athletes. Practitioners should be aware of both mental and physical symptoms of long COVID, and additional considerations may be required for athletes who have undergone intensive care. The present review provides a list of recommendations based on existing literature that may be followed and implemented for returning athletes.Key MessagesFurther research, including longitudinal research of athletes who have tested positive for COVID-19, is required to develop evidenced-based guidelines for athletes with ongoing COVID-19 symptoms.Prior to returning to play after COVID-19 infection, a thorough medical history, physical and psychological examination should be conducted by a medical professional.Athletes should continue to monitor and record their own physical and psychological markers of health.

Changes in dietary fat intake and associations with mental health in a UK public sample during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Consumption of unhealthy foods may have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explored how dietary fat intake was impacted in a sample of the UK public who were social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Data were collected from a UK COVID-19 online survey. Fat intake was measured using the Dietary Instrument for Nutrition Education questionnaire. Anxiety and depressive symptoms were assessed using Becks' Anxiety and Depression Inventories, while the short-form Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale assessed mental well-being. Differences between individuals who increased versus decreased fat intake were explored using chi-square or independent sample t-tests. Association between fat intake and mental health was explored using adjusted linear regression models. RESULTS: Eight hundred and eighty-seven adults were included. Approximately, 34% recorded medium-to-high levels of fat consumption during social distancing. Around 48% reported decreased fat intake during social distancing compared to usual levels, while 41.3% documented increased fat intake. Fat intake was not significantly associated (P > 0.05) with any measures of mental health. CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of a sample of UK adults social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic recorded decreased fat intake when compared to levels prior to social distancing. There appeared to be no associations between fat intake and mental health.

Changes in physical activity and sedentary behaviours from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: In March 2020, several countries banned unnecessary outdoor activities during COVID-19, commonly called 'lockdowns. These lockdowns have the potential to impact associated levels of physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Given the numerous health outcomes associated with physical activity and sedentary behaviour, the aim of this review was to summarise literature that investigated differences in physical activity and sedentary behaviour before vs during the COVID-19 lockdown. DESIGN DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Electronic databases were searched from November 2019 to October 2020 using terms and synonyms relating to physical activity, sedentary behaviour and COVID-19. The coprimary outcomes were changes in physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour captured via device-based measures or self-report tools. Risk of bias was measured using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Sixty six articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (total n=86 981). Changes in physical activity were reported in 64 studies, with the majority of studies reporting decreases in physical activity and increases in sedentary behaviours during their respective lockdowns across several populations, including children and patients with a variety of medical conditions. CONCLUSION: Given the numerous physical and mental benefits of increased physical activity and decreased sedentary behaviour, public health strategies should include the creation and implementation of interventions that promote safe physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour should other lockdowns occur.

Hand-Washing Practices among Adolescents Aged 12-15 Years from 80 Countries.

The objectives were to (1) assess the prevalence of hand-washing practices across 80 countries and (2) assess frequency of hand-washing practice by economic status (country income and severe food insecurity), in a global representative sample of adolescents. Cross-sectional data from the Global School-based Student Health Survey 2003-2017 were analyzed. Data on age, sex, hand-washing practices in the past 30 days, and severe food insecurity (i.e., proxy of socioeconomic status) were self-reported. Multivariable logistic regression and meta-analysis with random effects based on country-wise estimates were conducted to assess associations. Adolescents (n = 209,584) aged 12-15 years [mean (SD) age 13.8 (1.0) years; 50.9% boys] were included in the analysis. Overall, the prevalence of hand-washing practices were as follows: never/rarely washing hands before eating (6.4%), after using toilet (5.6%), or with soap (8.8%). The prevalence of never/rarely washing hands after using the toilet (10.8%) or with soap (14.3%) was particularly high in low-income countries. Severe food insecurity was associated with 1.34 (95%CI = 1.25-1.43), 1.61 (95%CI = 1.50-1.73), and 1.44 (95%CI = 1.35-1.53) times higher odds for never/rarely washing hands before eating, after using the toilet, and with soap, respectively. A high prevalence of inadequate hand washing practices was reported, particularly in low-income countries and those with severe food insecurity. In light of the present COVID-19 pandemic and the rapid expansion being observed in low- and middle-income locations, interventions that disseminate good hand-washing practices are urgently required. Such interventions may also have cross-over benefits in relation to other poor sanitation-related diseases.

Alcohol use and mental health during COVID-19 lockdown: A cross-sectional study in a sample of UK adults.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to examine the correlates of increased alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic-related restrictions that were implemented in a sample of UK adults. METHODS: This paper presents analyses of data from a cross-sectional study. Adults aged 18 years and over, residing in the UK and self-isolating from others outside their own household were eligible to participate. Participants reported increase or no increase in their level of alcohol consumption from before to during lockdown, as well as symptoms of anxiety, depression and mental wellbeing. Socio-demographic characteristics were compared between adults with and without reported increased alcohol consumption. The associations between reported increased alcohol consumption and mental health outcomes were investigated using logistic and linear regression analyses. RESULTS: 691 adults (61.1 % women; 48.8 % aged 35-64 years) were included in the analysis. Of these, 17 % reported increased alcohol consumption after lockdown. A higher proportion of 18-34-year olds reported increased alcohol consumption compared to older groups. The prevalence of poor overall mental health was significantly higher in individuals with increased alcohol consumption (vs. no increase) (45.4 % versus 32.7 %; p-value = 0.01). There was a significant association between increased alcohol consumption and poor overall mental health (OR = 1.64; 95 % CI = 1.01, 2.66), depressive symptoms (unstandardized beta = 2.93; 95 % CI = 0.91, 4.95) and mental wellbeing (unstandardized beta=-1.38; 95 % CI=-2.38, -0.39). CONCLUSIONS: More than one in six UK adults increased their alcohol consumption during lockdown and a higher proportion of these were younger adults. Increased alcohol consumption was independently associated with poor overall mental health, increased depressive symptoms and lower mental wellbeing. These findings highlight the importance of planning targeted support as we emerge from lockdown and plan for potential second and subsequent waves.

Prevalence and correlates of physical activity in a sample of UK adults observing social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the levels and correlates of physical activity during COVID-19 social distancing in a sample of the UK public. METHODS: This paper presents analyses of data from a cross-sectional study. Levels of physical activity during COVID-19 social distancing were self-reported. Participants also reported on sociodemographic and clinical data. The association between several factors and physical activity was studied using regression models. RESULTS: Nine hundred and eleven adults were included (64.0% were women and 50.4% of the participants were aged 35-64 years). 75.0% of the participants met the physical activity guidelines during social distancing. Meeting these guidelines during social distancing was significantly associated with sex (reference: male; female: OR=1.60, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33), age (reference: 18-34 years; ≥65 years: OR=4.11, 95% CI 2.01 to 8.92), annual household income (reference: <£15 000; £15 000-<£25 000: OR=2.03, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.76; £25 000-<£40 000: OR=3.16, 95% CI 1.68 to 6.04; £40 000-<£60 000: OR=2.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.34; ≥£60 000: OR=2.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.09), level of physical activity per day when not observing social distancing (OR=1.00 (per 1 min increase), 95% CI 1.00 to 1.01), and any physical symptom experienced during social distancing (reference: no; yes: OR=0.31, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.46). CONCLUSION: During COVID-19, social distancing interventions should focus on increasing physical activity levels among younger adults, men and those with low annual household income. It should be noted in the present sample that women and younger adults are over-represented.

The relationship between physical activity and mental health in a sample of the UK public: A cross-sectional study during the implementation of COVID-19 social distancing measures.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to investigate the cross-sectional association between physical activity levels with depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and positive mental well-being in a sample of the UK public social distancing owing to COVID-19. METHOD: This paper presents pre-planned interim analyses of data from a cross-sectional epidemiological study. Levels of physical activity during COVID-I9 social distancing were self-reported. Mental health was measured using the Beck Anxiety and Depression Inventory. Mental wellbeing was measured using The Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. Participants also reported on sociodemographic and clinical data. The association between physical activity and mental health was studied using regression models. RESULTS: 902 adults were included in this study (63.8% of women and 50.1% of people aged 35-64 years). After adjusting for covariates, there was a negative association between moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day in hours and poor mental health (OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.80-0.97). Similar findings were obtained for moderate-to-severe anxiety symptoms, moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms and poor mental wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: In the present sample of UK adults social distancing owing to COVID-19 those who were physically active have better overall mental health. Owing, to the cross-sectional design of the present study the direction of the association cannot be inferred.

Challenges in the Practice of Sexual Medicine in the Time of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND: On 23rd March 2020, the UK government released self-isolation/social distancing guidance to reduce the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The influence such guidance has on sexual activity is not known. AIM: To investigate levels and correlates of sexual activity during COVID-19 self-isolation/social distancing in a sample of the UK public. METHODS: This paper presents preplanned interim analyses of data from a cross-sectional epidemiological study, administered through an online survey. OUTCOMES: Sexual activity was measured using the following question: "On average after self-isolating how many times have you engaged in sexual activity weekly?" Demographic and clinical data were collected, including sex, age, marital status, employment, annual household income, region, current smoking status, current alcohol consumption, number of chronic physical conditions, number of chronic psychiatric conditions, any physical symptom experienced during self-isolation, and number of days of self-isolation/social distancing. The association between several factors (independent variables) and sexual activity (dependent variable) was studied using a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: 868 individuals were included in this study. There were 63.1% of women, and 21.8% of adults who were aged between 25 and 34 years. During self-isolation/social distancing, 39.9% of the population reported engaging in sexual activity at least once per week. Variables significantly associated with sexual activity (dependent variable) were being male, a younger age, being married or in a domestic partnership, consuming alcohol, and a higher number of days of self-isolation/social distancing. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In this sample of 868 UK adults self-isolating owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of sexual activity was lower than 40%. Those reporting particularly low levels of sexual activity included females, older adults, those not married, and those who abstain from alcohol consumption. STRENGTH AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first study to investigate sexual activity during the UK COVID-19 self-isolation/social distancing. Participants were asked to self-report their sexual activity potentially introducing self-reporting bias into the findings. Second, analyses were cross-sectional and thus it is not possible to determine trajectories of sexual activity during the current pandemic. CONCLUSION: Interventions to promote health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic should consider positive sexual health messages in mitigating the detrimental health consequences in relation to self-isolation/social distancing and should target those with the lowest levels of sexual activity. Jacob L, Smith L, Butler L, et al. Challenges in the Practice of Sexual Medicine in the Time of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. J Sex Med 2020;17:1229-1236.

Correlates of symptoms of anxiety and depression and mental wellbeing associated with COVID-19: a cross-sectional study of UK-based respondents.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the impact of COVID-19 self-isolation/social distancing on mental health, and potential correlates, among a sample of the UK population. METHODS: A cross-sectional study. Mental health was measured using the Beck Anxiety and Depression Inventory. Mental wellbeing was measured using The Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. Data collected on predictors included sex, age, marital status, employment, annual income, region, current smoking, current alcohol consumption, physical multimorbidity, any physical symptoms experienced during self-isolation/social distancing, and the number of days of self-isolation/social distancing. The association between potential predictors and poor mental health was studied using a multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 932 participants were included. Factors associated with poor mental health were sex (reference: male; female: OR=1.89, 95%CI=1.34-2.68), age (18-24 years: reference;45-54 years: OR=0.27, 95%CI=0.14-0.53; 55-64 years: OR=0.24, 95%CI=0.12-0.47; 65-74years: OR=0.10, 95% CI=0.05-0.22; and ≥75years: OR=0.08,95% CI=0.03-0.24),annual income (<£15,000: reference; £25,000-<£40,000: OR=0.54, 95% CI=0.31-0.93; £40,000-<£60,000: OR=0.39, 95% CI=0.22-0.69; and ≥£60,000: OR=0.38, 95% CI=0.21-0.67), current smoking (yes: OR=2.59, 95%CI=1.62-4.20), and physical multimorbidity (OR=2.35, 95%CI=1.61-3.46). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of UK adults self-isolating/social distancing females, younger age groups, those with a lower annual income, current smokers and those with physical multimorbidity were associated with higher levels of poor mental health.