US state variations in food bank donation policy and implications for nutrition.

Food insecurity has increased dramatically in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 public health and economic crisis. Many more families in the United States are turning to the charitable food system to help meet their needs. However, little is known about the policies that influence food bank donations and whether they promote healthy food donations. The purpose of this study was to explore state variation in food donation policies and secondarily to assess whether policies promoted the donation of healthy foods and beverages. We reviewed donation policies for all states in the United States and Washington, DC (hereafter "states") in fall 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed donation policies using two legal databases; we reconciled discrepancies via team discussion. We then grouped them into 10 distinct categories based on common purpose and theme. We identified 252 state policies from 51 states. Policies fell into all 10 categories. The largest category was "liability protection," with all states having a policy in this category. The second largest category was date labeling; 32 states had requirements or policies restricting the donation of past-dated foods. However, across all categories, we found that only two policies explicitly promoted the donation of healthy foods and beverages. Although all states had some policies governing food donations, few promoted healthier foods and beverages. States could encourage healthy donations through policy to help ensure that all families have access to nutritious foods and beverages.

Mental Health and the Perceived Usability of Digital Mental Health Tools Among Essential Workers and People Unemployed Due to COVID-19: Cross-sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has created serious mental health consequences for essential workers or people who have become unemployed as a result of the pandemic. Digital mental health tools have the potential to address this problem in a timely and efficient manner. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to document the extent of digital mental health tool (DMHT) use by essential workers and those unemployed due to COVID-19, including asking participants to rate the usability and user burden of the DMHT they used most to cope. We also explored which aspects and features of DMHTs were seen as necessary for managing stress during a pandemic by having participants design their own ideal DMHT. METHODS: A total of 2000 people were recruited from an online research community (Prolific) to complete a one-time survey about mental health symptoms, DMHT use, and preferred digital mental health features. RESULTS: The final sample included 1987 US residents that identified as either an essential worker or someone who was unemployed due to COVID-19. Almost three-quarters of the sample (1479/1987, 74.8%) reported clinically significant emotional distress. Only 14.2% (277/1957) of the sample used a DMHT to cope with stress associated with COVID-19. Of those who used DMHTs to cope with COVID-19, meditation apps were the most common (119/261, 45.6%). Usability was broadly in the acceptable range, although participants unemployed due to COVID-19 were less likely to report user burden with DMHTs than essential workers (t198.1=-3.89, P<.001). Individuals with emotional distress reported higher financial burden for their DMHT than nondistressed individuals (t69.0=-3.21, P=.01). When the sample was provided the option to build their own DMHT, the most desired features were a combination of mindfulness/meditation (1271/1987, 64.0%), information or education (1254/1987, 63.1%), distraction tools (1170/1987, 58.9%), symptom tracking for mood and sleep (1160/1987, 58.4%), link to mental health resources (1140/1987, 57.4%), and positive psychology (1131/1986, 56.9%). Subgroups by employment, distress, and previous DMHT use status had varied preferences. Of those who did not use a DMHT to cope with COVID-19, most indicated that they did not consider looking for such a tool to help with coping (1179/1710, 68.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the potential need for DMHTs, this study found that the use of such tools remains similar to prepandemic levels. This study also found that regardless of the level of distress or even past experience using an app to cope with COVID-19, it is possible to develop a COVID-19 coping app that would appeal to a majority of essential workers and unemployed persons.

Understanding Psychological Distress and Protective Factors Amongst Older Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the emotional distress and loneliness during COVID-19 and the roles of resiliency and activities. DESIGN: A cross-sectional national survey. SETTING: Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) and Prolific Research Platforms. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred and one U.S. dwelling English-speaking adults 60 years old and older. MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed an online survey with the PHQ-9; GAD-7; Short Health Anxiety Inventory; 3-item UCLA Loneliness scale; PROMIS measures of global health, instrumental, and emotional support; 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale; and COVID-19 needs assessment. RESULTS: Across the sample 13% reported moderate depressive symptoms, 9% reported moderate anxiety symptoms, and 26% endorsed being "lonely." The emotionally distressed group endorsed more loneliness, lower resiliency, less physical exercise, and worse physical health. The low Socio-Economic Status group endorsed less loneliness, less likely to engage in physical exercise and worse physical health.The lonely group endorsed less resilience, less physical exercise, and worse physical health. A multiple logistic regression found that resilience, socioeconomic status, and physical health were significant predictors of loneliness, whereas global health was the best predictor of emotional distress. CONCLUSIONS: Even after prolonged social distancing, older adults in this study did not report greater psychological distress compared to earlier studies of older adults during COVID-19. Older adults with lower SES, worse physical health, and less resiliency, were more likely to report more loneliness. It is this group that should be the focus of intervention.

Preference for Telehealth Sustained Over Three Months at an Outpatient Center for Integrative Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Integrative medicine is a key framework for the treatment of chronic medical conditions, particularly chronic pain conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted rapid implementation of telehealth services. OBJECTIVE: We present outcomes of a complete and rapid transition to telehealth visits at an outpatient integrative medicine center in the Southeastern United States. METHOD: Patients and administrative staff took surveys comparing telehealth to in-person visits within four weeks of our clinic's transition to telehealth and three months later. Beginning four weeks after the clinic's telehealth conversion in March 2020, patients who had a telehealth visit at the center completed a survey about their telehealth experience and another survey three months later. RESULTS: Patient quality judgements significantly favored telehealth at baseline, B = .77 [0.29 - 1.25], SE = .25, t(712) = 3.15, p = .002, and increased at three months, B = .27 [-0.03 - 0.57], SE = .15, t(712) = 1.76, p = .079. Telehealth technology usability and distance from the center predicted patient ratings of telehealth favorability. Providers favored in-person visits more than patients, B = -1.00 [-1.56 - -0.44], SE = .29, t(799) = -3.48, p < .001, though did not favor either in-person or telehealth more than the other. Patient discrete choice between telehealth and in-person visits was split at baseline (in-person: n = 86 [54%]; telehealth: n = 73 [46%]), but favored telehealth at three months (in-person: n = 17 [40%]; telehealth: n = 26 [60%]). Overall, discrete choice favored telehealth at follow-up across providers and patients, OR = 2.69 [.1.18 - 6.14], z = 2.36, p = .018. Major qualitative themes highlight telehealth as acceptable and convenient, with some challenges including technological issues. Some felt a loss of interpersonal connection during telehealth visits, while others felt the opposite. CONCLUSION: We report converging mixed-method data on the successful and sustained implementation of telehealth with associated policy and clinical implications during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.