Power of universal health coverage in the era of COVID-19: A nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, South Korea has achieved perfect universal health coverage (UHC)-all Koreans receive UHC regardless of their socioeconomic status. The current study investigated whether socioeconomic disparities remained in COVID-19 health outcomes under UHC. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study included all 7,590 confirmed COVID-19 patients in South Korea up to 15 May 2020. We used the official medical claim database, and socioeconomic status was estimated by insurance type (National Health Insurance Service [NHIS] beneficiaries and Medical Aid [MA] recipients). Type of insurance is a well-known indicator of socioeconomic status. Prevalence (per one million), mortality rate (per one million), and case fatality rate were calculated. To determine the factors associated with case fatality rate, multivariable logistic regressions were performed. FINDINGS: The nationwide prevalence, mortality rate, and case fatality rate of COVID-19 was 144•4, 4•3 and 3•0%, respectively. MA recipients had higher prevalence (424•3 vs 136.3), mortality rate (28•3 vs 3•6), and case fatality rate (6•7 vs 2•7) than NHIS beneficiaries. However, the adjusted analysis showed that the type of insurance was not associated with higher odds of case fatality. INTERPRETATION: We found socioeconomic disparities in COVID-19 prevalence and fatality despite UHC. However, disparities in fatality were not due to socioeconomic status, but due to the poor underlying health conditions of the people. This result can be explained by a combination of UHC, rapid early testing and treatment, transmission-reducing behaviours, and regional preparedness. FUNDING: This research did not receive any funding.

Work Restrictions for Healthcare Personnel with Potential In-hospital Exposure to SARS-CoV-2: Experience at a Tertiary Hospital.

Applying work restrictions for asymptomatic healthcare personnel (HCP) with potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is recommended to prevent transmission from potentially contagious HCP to patients and other HCP. However, it can lead to understaffing, which threatens the safety of both patients and HCP. We evaluated 203 COVID-19 exposure events at a single tertiary hospital from January 2020 to June 2021. A total of 2,365 HCP were potentially exposed, and work restrictions were imposed on 320 HCP, leading to the loss of 3,311 working days. However, only one of the work-restricted HCP was confirmed with COVID-19. During the study period, the work restriction measures might be taken excessively compared to their benefit, so establishing more effective standards for work restriction is required.

The Psychological Burden of COVID-19 Stigma: Evaluation of the Mental Health of Isolated Mild Condition COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this article is to assess the mental health issues of the mild condition coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to a community treatment center (CTC) in Korea. METHODS: A total of 107 patients admitted to a CTC were included as the study population, and their mental health problems including depression (patient health questionnaire-9), anxiety (generalized anxiety disorder scale-7), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (PTSD checklist-5) and somatic symptoms (by patient health questionnaire-15) were evaluated every week during their stay. The stigma related to COVID-19 infection was evaluated with an adjusted version of the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) stigma scale. RESULTS: During the first week of isolation, the prevalence of more-than-moderate depression was 24.3%, more-than-moderate anxiety was 14.9%, more-than-moderate somatic symptoms was 36.5% and possible PTSD was 5.6% of total population. For depression and anxiety, previous psychiatric history and stigma of COVID-19 infection were significant risk factors. For PTSD, previous psychiatric history and stigma of COVID-19 infection as well as total duration of isolation were found to be significant risk factors. Prevalence of depression, anxiety and possible PTSD remained similar across the four weeks of observations, though the prevalence of severe depression, increased after four weeks of stay. Somatic symptoms seemed to decrease during their stay. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that social mitigation of COVID-19 related stigma, as well as care of patients with pre-existing mental health problems are important mental health measures during this crisis period. It is also important that clinical guidelines and public health policies be well balanced over the protection of the public and those quarantined to minimize the negative psychosocial consequences from isolation of the patients.

Selecting coronavirus disease 2019 patients with negligible risk of progression: early experience from non-hospital isolation facility in Korea.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: As the novel coronavirus (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) outbreak progresses rapidly, staying home is recommended for suspected patients; however, the safety of this recommendation is uncertain. In Korea, non-hospital facilities called "living and treatment centers (LTCs)" have been established since 5 March 2020. The LTCs provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the safety of selection criteria for low-risk groups. METHODS: Between 5 March and 9 April 2020, patients with COVID-19 who met the following criteria were admitted to the LTC; alert, age below 65 years old, no underlying disease or well-controlled underlying disease, body temperature below 38.0°C, whether taking antipyretics or not, and no dyspnea. Patients were closely observed by doctors or nurses' interviews twice a day and transferred to hospitals when symptoms worsened. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were admitted to the LTC; 52.2% were female, with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 21.5 to 39.5). Of 113 patients, 54 (47.8%) were asymptomatic at diagnosis, and 15 (13.3%) had no symptoms until they were released from isolation. During the follow-up period, two (1.8%) patients were transferred to a hospital but did not progress to severe status during hospitalization. CONCLUSION: The risk of progression was negligible in COVID-19 patients who met the admission criteria for LTC at the time of diagnosis. LTCs could be a safe alternative considering shortage of hospital beds.

Influence of trust on two different risk perceptions as an affective and cognitive dimension during Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak in South Korea: serial cross-sectional surveys.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the affective and cognitive risk perceptions in the general population of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) during the 2015 MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak in South Korea and the influencing factors. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional design with four consecutive surveys. SETTING: Nationwide general population in South Korea. PARTICIPANTS: Overall 4010 respondents (aged 19 years and over) from the general population during the MERS-CoV epidemic were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were (1) affective risk perception, (2) cognitive risk perception, and (3) trust in the government. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify factors (demographic, socioeconomic, area and political orientation) associated with risk perceptions. RESULTS: Both affective and cognitive risk perceptions decreased as the MERS-CoV epidemic progressed. Proportions of affective risk perception were higher in all surveys and slowly decreased compared with cognitive risk perception over time. Females (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.72-2.00; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.86) and lower self-reported household economic status respondents were more likely to perceive the affective risk. The older the adults, the higher the affective risk perception, but the lower the cognitive risk perception compared with younger adults. The respondents who had low trust in the government had higher affective (aOR 2.19-3.11; 95 CI 1.44 to 4.67) and cognitive (aOR 3.55-5.41; 95 CI 1.44 to 9.01) risk perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that even if cognitive risk perception is dissolved, affective risk perception can continue during MERS-CoV epidemic. Risk perception associating factors (ie, gender, age and self-reported household economic status) appear to be noticeably different between affective and cognitive dimensions. It also indicates that trust in the government influences affective risk perception and cognitive risk perception. There is a need for further efforts to understand the mechanism regarding the general public's risk perception for effective risk communication.