Extending the Theory of Normative Social Behavior: Collective Norms, Opinion Leadership, and Masking During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Novel, public behaviors, such as masking, should be susceptible to normative influence. This paper advances the theory of normative social behavior by considering a new set of moderators of normative influence - superdiffuser traits - and by clarifying the antecedents and consequences of exposure to collective norms. We use data from a two-wave survey of a cohort living in one U.S. county during the pandemic (N = 913) to assess normative effects on masking. We also used a bipartite network (based on people shopping for food in the same stores) to examine exposure to collective norms. The results show different superdiffuser traits have distinct effects on the relationship between perceived injunctive norms and masking intentions. Exposure to collective norms influences masking, but this influence depends on how people interact with their social environments. Network analysis shows that behavioral homophily is a significant predictor of selective exposure to collective norms earlier (but not later) in the pandemic. Implications for understanding normative influence in a context where opinion leadership matters are discussed.

In severe COVID-19, high-flow vs. conventional oxygen therapy reduced intubation and time to clinical recovery at 28 d.

SOURCE CITATION: Ospina-Tascón GA, Calderón-Tapia LE, García AF, et al. Effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy on invasive mechanical ventilation and clinical recovery in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:2161-71. 34874419.

Evaluating older adults with cognitive dysfunction: A qualitative study with emergency clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating older adults with cognitive dysfunction in emergency departments (EDs) requires obtaining collateral information from sources other than the patient. Understanding the challenges emergency clinicians face in obtaining collateral information can inform development of interventions to improve geriatric emergency care and, more specifically, detection of ED delirium. The objective was to understand emergency clinicians' experiences obtaining collateral information on older adults with cognitive dysfunction, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: From February to May 2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 22 emergency physicians and advanced practice providers from two urban academic hospitals and one community hospital in the Northeast United States. Interviews lasted 10-20 min and were digitally recorded and transcribed. Interview transcripts were analyzed for dominant themes using a combined deductive-inductive approach. Responses regarding experiences before and during the pandemic were compared. RESULTS: Five major challenges emerged regarding (1) availability of caregivers, (2) reliability of sources, (3) language barriers, (4) time constraints, and (5) incomplete transfer documentation. Participants perceived all challenges, but those relating to transfer documentation were amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Emergency clinicians' perspectives can inform efforts to support caregiver presence at bedside and develop standardized communication tools to improve recognition of delirium and, more broadly, geriatric emergency care.

The Hyperperception Model: When Your Partner's New Friends Inspire Jealousy and Failing to Use Social Distancing.

The hyperperception model was used to derive hypotheses concerning the processes by which people experience romantic jealousy because of their observation of their romantic partners on social network sites. The main focus was on the receiver component of the model that specifies that when observation of others' interactions is constrained to social media, those interactions appear more intimate than when the dyad is also observable offline. A survey (N = 322) was conducted to test this component of the model and determine if the model can predict additional phenomena such as possession signals and staying home during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data were generally consistent with the hypotheses and the utility of the hyperperception model for understanding the effects of observing romantic partners' interactions on social media. The data also reveal the importance of interpersonal processes in obeying social distancing guidelines.

Vestibular neuritis caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection diagnosed by serology: Case report.

Vestibular neuritis is a disorder selectively affecting the vestibular portion of the eighth cranial nerve generally considered to be inflammatory in nature. There have been no reports of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causing vestibular neuritis. We present the case of a 42-year-old Caucasian male physician, providing care to COVID-19 patients, with no significant past medical history, who developed acute vestibular neuritis, 2 weeks following a mild respiratory illness, later diagnosed as COVID-19. Physicians should keep severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 high on the list as a possible etiology when suspecting vestibular neuritis, given the extent and implications of the current pandemic and the high contagiousness potential.

Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes of a Large Cohort of COVID-19 Outpatients in Michigan.

BACKGROUND: Most outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) do not initially demonstrate severe features requiring hospitalization. Understanding this population's epidemiological and clinical characteristics to allow outcome anticipation is crucial in healthcare resource allocation. METHODS: Retrospective, multicenter (8 hospitals) study reporting on 821 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay of nasopharyngeal swabs and discharged home to self-isolate after evaluation in emergency departments (EDs) within Beaumont Health System in March, 2020. Outcomes were collected through April 14, 2020, with a minimum of 12 day follow-up and included subsequent ED visit, admission status, and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 821 patients, mean age was 49.3 years (SD 15.7), 46.8% were male and 55.1% were African-American. Cough was the most frequent symptom in 78.2% of patients with a median duration of 3 days (IQR 2-7), and other symptoms included fever 62.1%, rhinorrhea or nasal congestion 35.1% and dyspnea 31.2%. ACEI/ARBs usage was reported in 28.7% patients and 34.0% had diabetes mellitus. Return to the ED for re-evaluation was reported in 19.2% of patients from whom 54.4% were admitted. The patients eventually admitted to the hospital were older (mean age 54.4 vs 48.7 years, p=0.002), had higher BMI (35.4 kg/m2 vs 31.9 kg/m2, p=0.004), were more likely male (58.1% vs 45.4%, p=0.026), and more likely to have hypertension (52.3% vs 29.4%, p<0.001), diabetes mellitus (74.4% vs 29.3%, p<0.001) or prediabetes (25.6% vs 8.4%, p<0.001), COPD (39.5% vs 5.4%, p<0.001), and OSA (36% vs 19%, p<0.001). The overall mortality rate was 1.3%. CONCLUSION: We found that 80.8% of patients did not return to the ED for re-evaluation. Sending patients with COVID-19 home if they experience mild symptoms is a safe approach for most patients and might mitigate some of the financial and staffing pressures on healthcare systems.

Rapid antigen and molecular tests had varied sensitivity and ≥97% specificity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection.

SOURCE CITATION: Dinnes J, Deeks JJ, Adriano A, et al. Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;8:CD013705. 32845525.

External validation of a clinical risk score to predict hospital admission and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospital admission or at high-risk of in-hospital mortality is essential to guide patient triage and to provide timely treatment for higher risk hospitalized patients. METHODS: A retrospective multi-centre (8 hospital) cohort at Beaumont Health, Michigan, USA, reporting on COVID-19 patients diagnosed between 1 March and 1 April 2020 was used for score validation. The COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score was automatically computed by the EHR. Multivariate logistic regression models were built to predict hospital admission and in-hospital mortality using individual variables constituting the score. Validation was performed using both discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: Compared to Green scores, Yellow Scores (OR: 5.72) and Red Scores (OR: 19.1) had significantly higher odds of admission (both p < .0001). Similarly, Yellow Scores (OR: 4.73) and Red Scores (OR: 13.3) had significantly higher odds of in-hospital mortality than Green Scores (both p < .0001). The cross-validated C-Statistics for the external validation cohort showed good discrimination for both hospital admission (C = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.81)) and in-hospital mortality (C = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78)). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score predicts the need for hospital admission and in-hospital mortality patients with COVID-19. Key points: Can an electronic health record generated risk score predict the risk of hospital admission and in-hospital mortality in patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? In both validation cohorts of 2,025 and 1,290 COVID-19, the cross-validated C-Statistics showed good discrimination for both hospital admission (C = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.81)) and in-hospital mortality (C = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78)), respectively. The COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score may help predict the need for hospital admission if a patient contracts SARS-CoV-2 infection and in-hospital mortality for a hospitalized patient with COVID-19.

Diagnosing COVID-19 in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review of Clinical Examinations, Laboratory Tests, Imaging Accuracy, and Biases.

OBJECTIVE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged as a global pandemic in early 2020 with rapidly evolving approaches to diagnosing the clinical illness called coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The primary objective of this scoping review is to synthesize current research of the diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), immunology tests, and computed tomography (CT) for the emergency department (ED) diagnosis of COVID-19. Secondary objectives included a synopsis of diagnostic biases likely with current COVID-19 research as well as corresponding implications of false-negative and false-positive results for clinicians and investigators. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR)-adherent synthesis of COVID-19 diagnostic accuracy through May 5, 2020, was conducted. The search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and included studies indexed by PubMed and Embase since January 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1,907 citations were screened for relevance. Patients without COVID-19 are rarely reported, so specificity and likelihood ratios were generally unavailable. Fever is the most common finding, while hyposmia and hypogeusia appear useful to rule in COVID-19. Cough is not consistently present. Lymphopenia is the mostly commonly reported laboratory abnormality and occurs in over 50% of COVID-19 patients. rRT-PCR is currently considered the COVID-19 criterion standard for most diagnostic studies, but a single test sensitivity ranges from 60% to 78%. Multiple reasons for false-negatives rRT-PCR exist, including sample site tested and disease stage during which sample was obtained. CT may increase COVID-19 sensitivity in conjunction with rRT-PCR, but guidelines for imaging patients most likely to benefit are emerging. IgM and IgG serology levels are undetectable in the first week of COVID-19, but sensitivity (range = 82% to 100%) and specificity (range = 87% to 100%) are promising. Whether detectable COVID-19 antibodies correspond to immunity remains unanswered. Current studies do not adhere to accepted diagnostic accuracy reporting standards and likely report significantly biased results if the same tests were to be applied to general ED populations with suspected COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of fever and disorders of smell/taste, history and physical examination findings are unhelpful to distinguish COVID-19 from other infectious conditions that mimic SARS-CoV-2 like influenza. Routine laboratory tests are also nondiagnostic, although lymphopenia is a common finding and other abnormalities may predict severe disease. Although rRT-PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus-based criteria will likely emerge because of the high false-negative rate of PCR tests. The role of serology and CT in ED assessments remains undefined.