The Coronavirus Impact Scale: Construction, Validation, and Comparisons in Diverse Clinical Samples

Objective This report is of the construction and initial psychometric properties of the Coronavirus Impact Scale in multiple large and diverse samples of families with children and adolescents. The scale was established to capture the impact of the coronavirus pandemic during its first wave. Differences in impact between samples and internal structure within samples were assessed. Method Five hundred, seventy-two caregivers of children and adolescents or expecting mothers in diverse clinical and research settings completed the Coronavirus Impact Scale. Samples differed in developmental stage, background, inpatient/outpatient status, and primary research or clinical setting. Model free methods were used to measure the scale's internal structure and determine a scoring method. Differences between samples in specific item responses were measured by multivariate ordinal regression. Results The Coronavirus Impact Scale demonstrated good internal consistency in a variety of clinical and research populations. Across the groups studied, single, immigrant, predominantly Latinx mothers of young children reported the greatest impact of the pandemic, with noteworthy effects on food access and finances reported. Individuals receiving outpatient or inpatient care reported greater impacts on health care access. Elevated scores on the Coronavirus Impact Scale were positively associated with measures of caregiver anxiety and both caregiver- and child-reported stress at a moderate effect size. Conclusion The Coronavirus Impact Scale is a publicly available scale with adequate psychometric properties for use in measuring the impact of the coronavirus pandemic in diverse populations.

Clinical practice guideline for clozapine use in patients with COVID‐19

National and local guidelines focus mainly on clozapine monitoring frequency, and actions based on full blood count results. Prescribing clozapine in the context of COVID‐19‐positive patients brings a complexity of challenge beyond this. In this article the authors put forward an example of a practical clinical guideline in this regard.

Advancing child health and educational equity during the COVID-19 pandemic through science and advocacy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the changing role of scientists, clinicians, ethicists, and educators in advocacy as they rapidly translate their findings to inform practice and policy. Critical efforts have been directed towards understanding child well-being, especially with pandemic-related educational disruptions. While school closures were part of early widespread public health measures to curb the spread of COVID-19, they have not been without consequences for all children, and especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In a recent Isr J Health Policy Res perspective, Paltiel and colleagues demonstrate the integral role of academic activism to promote child well-being during the pandemic by highlighting work of the multidisciplinary academic group on children and coronavirus (MACC). In this commentary, we explore parallels to MACC's work in an international context by describing the efforts of a multidisciplinary team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, United States, to aggregate data, conduct analyses, and offer training tools intended to minimize health and educational inequities for children throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. As both MACC and our work collectively demonstrates, multidisciplinary partnerships and public-facing data-driven initiatives are crucial to advocating for children's equitable access to quality health and education. This will likely not be the last pandemic that children experience in their lifetime. As such, efforts should be made to apply the lessons learned during the current pandemic to strengthen multidisciplinary academic-public partnerships which will continue to play a critical role in the future.

Children's Attention and Self-Regulatory Behavior Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate changes in children's self-regulatory behavior before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Participants were parents of children aged 4 to 13 years (n = 45, mean 7.5, SD: 2.6) who participated in the Baltimore Generations Study before the pandemic. They reported on their child's self-regulation (SR) using the Parent Observation of Child Adaptation. During the pandemic, they were recontacted to report on child SR, disruptions to family life (Coronavirus Impact Scale), and parenting stress (Parenting Stress Index). Prepandemic to pandemic changes in SR were compared with repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: There were significant decreases in child SR (poorer concentration, attention, task engagement and persistence, and greater impulsivity) prepandemic to pandemic. During the pandemic, parenting stress was correlated with lower child SR (r range = -0.52 to -0.34, p < 0.05). Pandemic-related family disruptions were associated with changes in children's impulsivity (F [1, 42] = 5.28, p = 0.03); children with 4 or more disruptions (67%) showed less ability to wait their turn during the pandemic compared with prepandemic (M [SD] = 3.34 [0.93] vs. 4.41 [1.21], t [28] = 3.93, p < 0.001). There was no change in SR for children with fewer than 4 disruptions. CONCLUSION: Results highlight modest pandemic-associated decreases in child attention, task persistence, and task engagement alongside increases in impulsivity. We did not find evidence of broad or severe impacts; however, children whose families have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic may need focused support in school and at home to avoid widening prepandemic health and educational disparities.

COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in the US, 2020.

Importance: Contact tracing is a multistep process to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Gaps in the process result in missed opportunities to prevent COVID-19. Objective: To quantify proportions of cases and their contacts reached by public health authorities and the amount of time needed to reach them and to compare the risk of a positive COVID-19 test result between contacts and the general public during 4-week assessment periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study took place at 13 health departments and 1 Indian Health Service Unit in 11 states and 1 tribal nation. Participants included all individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and their named contacts. Local COVID-19 surveillance data were used to determine the numbers of persons reported to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were interviewed and named contacts between June and October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: For contacts, the numbers who were identified, notified of their exposure, and agreed to monitoring were calculated. The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculated, as were numbers of named contacts subsequently notified of their exposure and monitored. The prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among named and tested contacts was compared with that jurisdiction's general population during the same 4 weeks. Results: The total number of cases reported was 74 185. Of these, 43 931 (59%) were interviewed, and 24 705 (33%) named any contacts. Among the 74 839 named contacts, 53 314 (71%) were notified of their exposure, and 34 345 (46%) agreed to monitoring. A mean of 0.7 contacts were reached by telephone by public health authorities, and only 0.5 contacts per case were monitored. In general, health departments reporting large case counts during the assessment (≥5000) conducted smaller proportions of case interviews and contact notifications. In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days or less. In 6 of 8 locations with population comparison data, positive test prevalence was higher among named contacts than the general population. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US local COVID-19 surveillance data, testing named contacts was a high-yield activity for case finding. However, this assessment suggests that contact tracing had suboptimal impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely because 2 of 3 cases were either not reached for interview or named no contacts when interviewed. These findings are relevant to decisions regarding the allocation of public health resources among the various prevention strategies and for the prioritization of case investigations and contact tracing efforts.

Nuclear Medicine Clinical Practice in the United States During the COVID-19 Era and Beyond.

Traditionally, practice in nuclear medicine has involved strong emphasis on radiation safety principles. Nuclear medicine technologists (NMTs) focus on practices that keep patients, the public, and the technologist safe from potentially harmful effects of unnecessary radiation exposure using concepts of time, distance, and shielding as well as ALARA (As low as reasonably achievable) principles. The current COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the need to apply focus on infection prevention in practice and update knowledge and procedures on such measures. In this article, the authors outline the need for NMTs to develop practices and values focused on infection prevention measures.