Are changes in physical activity during COVID-19 associated with mental health among Danish university students?

Aims: The benefits associated with being physical active on mental health is well-established, but little is known on how rapid changes in physical activity are associated with mental health. This study investigated the association between changes in physical activity and mental health among Danish university students during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Methods: Online survey data were collected among 2,280 university students at the University of Southern Denmark and University of Copenhagen in May-June 2020 as part the "COVID-19 International Student Well-being Study." Multiple linear regressions were used to analyze associations between changes in physical activity and mental health (depression and stress scores) adjusted for potential socio-economic confounders. Results: During the first COVID-19 lockdown, 40% decreased their moderate and 44% their vigorous physical activity, while 16% increased their moderate and 13% their vigorous physical activity. Overall, students with a stable physical activity level had the lowest mean depressive and stress scores. Adjusted analyses showed that a decrease in vigorous and moderate physical activity level was significantly associated with a higher depression score (mean difference (vigorous): 1.36, p < 0.001 and mean difference (moderate): 1.55, p < 0.001). A decrease in vigorous physical activity and an increase in moderate physical activity was associated with a 1-point increase in the PSS-4 stress score (p < 0.001). Conclusion: A substantial proportion of students changed their physical activity level during lockdown. Our findings emphasize the importance of staying physically active during COVID-19 lockdown. This knowledge might be important for relevant health authorities to bridle post-pandemic mental health challenges.

Is Lower Trust in COVID-19 Regulations Associated with Academic Frustration? A Comparison between Danish and German University Students.

Despite the proximity of both countries, Danes and Germans differ in the level of trust in their government. This may play a role with respect to the disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on university students. This study investigated the association between trust in governmental regulations, trust in university regulations, risk perceptions, and academic frustration among Danish and German students. As part of the COVID-19 International Student Well-being Study, an online survey was distributed among university students in participating European and non-European universities. In Denmark, 2945 students and Germany, 8725 students responded to the questionnaire between May and July 2020. Students from both countries reported approximately the same level of academic frustration concerning their progress and quality of education. However, German students perceived a higher risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 compared to Danish respondents. Danish students showed higher trust in their government's COVID-19 regulations than German students. Lower trust in government and university COVID-19 regulations and higher risk perception were associated with higher academic frustration. These results indicate that the level of trust in COVID-19 regulations might have an impact the overall frustration of students regarding their study conditions.

Balancing financial incentives during COVID-19: A comparison of provider payment adjustments across 20 countries.

Provider payment mechanisms were adjusted in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Our objective was to review adjustments for hospitals and healthcare professionals across 20 countries. We developed an analytical framework distinguishing between payment adjustments compensating income loss and those covering extra costs related to COVID-19. Information was extracted from the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) and classified according to the framework. We found that income loss was not a problem in countries where professionals were paid by salary or capitation and hospitals received global budgets. In countries where payment was based on activity, income loss was compensated through budgets and higher fees. New FFS payments were introduced to incentivize remote services. Payments for COVID-19 related costs included new fees for out- and inpatient services but also new PD and DRG tariffs for hospitals. Budgets covered the costs of adjusting wards, creating new (ICU) beds, and hiring staff. We conclude that public payers assumed most of the COVID-19-related financial risk. In view of future pandemics policymakers should work to increase resilience of payment systems by: (1) having systems in place to rapidly adjust payment systems; (2) being aware of the economic incentives created by these adjustments such as cost-containment or increasing the number of patients or services, that can result in unintended consequences such as risk selection or overprovision of care; and (3) periodically evaluating the effects of payment adjustments on access and quality of care.

Balancing financial incentives during COVID-19: a comparison of provider payment adjustments across 20 countries

Provider payment mechanisms were adjusted in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Our objective was to review adjustments for hospitals and healthcare professionals across 20 countries. We developed an analytical framework distinguishing between payment adjustments compensating income loss and those covering extra costs related to COVID-19. Information was extracted from the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) and classified according to the framework. We found that income loss was not a problem in countries where professionals were paid by salary or capitation and hospitals received global budgets. In countries where payment was based on activity, income loss was compensated through budgets and higher fees. New FFS payments were introduced to incentivize remote services. Payments for COVID-19 related costs included new fees for out- and inpatient services but also new PD and DRG tariffs for hospitals. Budgets covered the costs of adjusting wards, creating new (ICU) beds, and hiring staff. We conclude that public payers assumed most of the COVID-19-related financial risk. In view of future pandemics policymakers should work to increase resilience of payment systems by: (1) having systems in place to rapidly adjust payment systems;(2) being aware of the economic incentives created by these adjustments such as cost-containment or increasing the number of patients or services, that can result in unintended consequences such as risk selection or overprovision of care;and (3) periodically evaluating the effects of payment adjustments on access and quality of care.

Nordic responses to Covid-19: Governance and policy measures in the early phases of the pandemic.

This paper explores and compares health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, in the context of existing governance features. Content compiled in the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor combined with other publicly available country information serve as the foundation for this analysis. The analysis mainly covers early response until August 2020, but includes some key policy and epidemiological developments up until December 2020. Our findings suggest that despite the many similarities in adopted policy measures, the five countries display differences in implementation as well as outcomes. Declaration of state of emergency has differed in the Nordic region, whereas the emphasis on specialist advisory agencies in the decision-making process is a common feature. There may be differences in how respective populations complied with the recommended measures, and we suggest that other structural and circumstantial factors may have an important role in variations in outcomes across the Nordic countries. The high incidence rates among migrant populations and temporary migrant workers, as well as differences in working conditions are important factors to explore further. An important question for future research is how the COVID-19 epidemic will influence legislation and key principles of governance in the Nordic countries.