Supply chain resilience in a Covid-19 scenario: Mapping capabilities in a systemic framework.

COVID-19 hits the global supply chains in a non-paradigm manner unfolding new and systemic complexity. Therefore, the unexpected and frequent disruptions forced the concern of preventing or creating supply chain resilience capabilities. This paper aims to provide theoretical and practical reflections on resilience in supply chains of essential goods during pandemics using a systems approach. Documental research was performed in order to characterize business practices in consulting reports and interviews with managers published in business communication media. Thus, a careful content analysis was carried out, including the coding and categorization of the leading practices indicated by these vehicles. We suggest categories of resilience factors as new concepts to face the new normal in the supply chains. These categories are Technology and People, Sourcing, Customer, Ecosystem, and Financial Assets. The systems approach consists of more qualified supply chain management stimulating several inputs and synchronized actions to sense and respond to the external environment dynamics.

Keeping the Pace between Research and Clinical in Covid-19 Pandemic: A Psychological Experience in a High-Risk Pregnancy Ward

Background: From the literature emerges that having a pregnancy and especially a high-risk pregnancy in time of pandemic can lead to an increase of the levels of anxiety, which are usually already higher in relation to maternal-fetal disease. Furthermore, the literature shows that significant organizational and methodological changes have been introduced in the detection of psychological conditions, such as the introduction of telehealth intervention. Particularly in our experience about psychological health screenings there was a period of care interruption (between 11.03.2020 and 04.05.2020) and a clinical activity restructuring on the ward according to the new needs that have accrued. The aim of this experience is to analyze the progress of psychological health perinatal screening in women during the Covid-19. Specifically, we aimed to understand the percentage of positive screening and management compared to the pre-pandemic period. Method(s): Perinatal psychological screening was administered to women with high-risk pregnancy hospitalized in a Obstetric ward in a period between May 2020 to December 2021. The data were then compared with those recorded from September 2019 to February 2020 (pre-Covid-19). Screening consists in the description of the Obstetrical Psychology Service, the case history, the self-administration questionnaire GHQ-12 (General Health Questionnaire- 12) and the assessment interview if necessary. Result(s): A total of 469 screenings were administered during the pandemic, about 30% of which were found to be positive in the screenings (2020-21). Specifically in 2020, the positivity amounted to 28.69%. Of these 64 women, 56 performed the assessment, and in particular 22 were taken to the Psychology Service, 6 were referred to the territorial counseling centers, and 28 didn't receive further treatment indication. In 2021, the positivity was 32.93%. Especially of these 81 women, 32 were taken to the Psychology Service, 10 were sent to the territorial counseling centers and, 16 refused the assessment interview, 6 were already in treatment, 11 didn't receive further treatment indications and 6 cases dropped out. In the pre-pandemic phase the rate of positivity was 27%. Of the 30 women who tested positive at the screening, 5 were taken to the Psychology Service, 9 were referred to family counseling centers in the area, 11 refused the assessment interview, and 5 didn't receive further therapeutic indication. Conclusion(s): The importance of psychological care continuity and the feasibility of administering psychological health screenings clearly emerges in the ward despite the changed health situation due to Covid-19. The results show how the positivity rate for psychological health screening increases over the years (27% from September 2019 to February 2020/pre-Covid-19, 28,69% from May to December 2020 and 32,93% in 2021).

Short Time: Postnatal Hospital Care during Covid-19 Pandemic. The Results of a Psychological Wellbeing Screening in the Immediate Postpartum

Introduction: During the Covid-19 pandemic, isolation, fear of contagion, changes in care circumstances, and suspended or restricted visitor access impacted the psychological wellbeing of puerperae. As shown in literature [1,2], Covid-19 pandemic increased depressive and post-traumatic stress related symptoms in mothers in the postnatal period. Moreover, it could determine serious psychological challenges for pregnant and postpartum women, with potential "short" and "long" term consequences for the health of mothers and their children [2]. Healthcare providers should guarantee easy access to mental health services, as a primary strategy to support the health of both mothers and children [2]. After the worldwide spread of Covid-19 the organization of every hospital ward changed, including the obstetric and neonatal units. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, a reduction of the average length of stay in hospital for the new mothers was instituted [3]. This was the result of a reduction of the hospital beds, mostly because of the need to allocate mothers tested positive for Covid-19 in a separate area and to lower the risk of Covid-19 transmission in hospitals. The Obstetric Psychological Service of the Spedali Civili hospital in Brescia started a screening program for the wellbeing of the perinatal period in 2018, with a gradual development and improvement of the organization of this activity [4]. Screening was suspended during the first wave of Covid-19 pandemic from 6th of March to 4th of May 2020. Nevertheless, it was necessary to cope with the Covid-19 pandemic changing demands and methods in order to continue with the screening of women admitted in obstetrics ward. Method(s): A screening of psychological perinatal wellbeing was performed in puerperae admitted to the Second Department of Obstetrics at Spedali Civili hospital in Brescia. Screening consisted in a psychological consult, during which the psychologist illustrated the Obstetric Psychological Service to the woman and identified her psychological need, without using tests. This was eventually followed by an assessment consultation, specialist care and referral to the out-of-hospital psychological services, if required by the woman or considered necessary by the psychologist. It was made a comparison between data collected from October 2019 to January 2020 and from May 2020 to December 2021. Result(s): Compared to the pre-pandemic period, average length of stay in the Second Division of Obstetrics was reduced. In particular, starting from March 2020, the expected discharge of the puerpera was about 24 hours after vaginal birth and 48 hours after cesarean delivery, if no complications occurred for both mother and newborn. Previously, discharge was expected after about 48 hours and 72 hours, respectively. Discharge that occurs 24 hours after vaginal birth is named "Early discharge" and requires the activation of the out-of-hospital services, with home visits by an obstetrician. From October 2019 to January 2020, 470 admitted women were screened, of which 23 (4,9%) demanded a further psychological consultation[4]. Between May 2020 and December 2021, 5145 screening were performed. Among them 550 (10.7%) demanded a further psychological consultation. From those data we can affirm that there was an increase in psychological consultations (from 4.9% to 10.7%), after exhibiting a psychological need during the postnatal screening. Conclusion(s): Covid-19 pandemic changed the care conditions of the woman during the pregnancy and the immediate post-partum. The reduction of the average length of hospital stay of the women in the postpartum did not stop the Psychological Service prevention program. The Obstetric Psychological Service of the Spedali Civili hospital in Brescia implemented his activity increasing the pace of work, to be able to screen as many admitted women as possible. It was noticed that, after the Covid-19 first outbreak, the demand for psychological consultation after the screening consult was more than doubled in comparison to the pre-pandemic perio . This emphasized the benefit of an early interception of the psychological need of the women in the immediate post-partum period, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Tuberculosis Outbreak in a State Prison System - Washington, 2021-2022.

During 2014-2020, no tuberculosis (TB) cases were reported within the Washington state prison system. However, during July 2021-June 2022, 25 TB cases were reported among persons incarcerated or formerly incarcerated in two Washington state prisons. Phylogenetic analyses of whole genome sequencing data indicated that Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from all 11 patients with culture-confirmed TB were closely related, suggesting that these cases represented a single outbreak. The median infectious period for 12 patients who were considered likely contagious was 170 days. As of November 15, 2022, the Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) and Washington State Department of Health (WADOH), with technical assistance from CDC, had identified 3,075 contacts among incarcerated residents and staff members at five state prisons, and 244 contacts without a known TB history received a diagnosis of latent TB infection (LTBI). Persons who were evaluated for TB disease were isolated; those receiving a diagnosis of TB then initiated antituberculosis therapy. Persons with LTBI were offered treatment to prevent progression to TB disease. This ongoing TB outbreak is the largest in Washington in 20 years. Suspension of annual TB screening while limited resources were redirected toward the COVID-19 response resulted in delayed case detection that facilitated TB transmission. In addition, fear of isolation might discourage residents and staff members from reporting symptoms, which likely also leads to delayed TB diagnoses. Continued close collaboration between WADOC and WADOH is needed to end this outbreak and prevent future outbreaks.

Prosocial behavior promotes positive emotion during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about humans' physical and mental well-being. In response, there has been an urgent "call to action" for psychological interventions that enhance positive emotion and psychological resilience. Prosocial behavior has been shown to effectively promote well-being, but is this strategy effective during a pandemic when ongoing apprehension for personal safety could acutely heighten self-focused concern? In two online preregistered experiments (N = 1,623) conducted during the early stage of pandemic (April 2020), we examined this question by randomly assigning participants to engage in other- or self-beneficial action. For the first time, we manipulated whether prosocial behavior was related to the source of stress (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]): Participants purchased COVID-19-related (personal protective equipment, PPE) or COVID-19-unrelated items (food/writing supplies) for themselves or someone else. Consistent with preregistered hypotheses, prosocial (vs. non-pro-social or proself) behavior led to higher levels of self-reported positive affect, empathy, and social connectedness. Notably, we also found that psychological benefits were larger when generous acts were unrelated to COVID-19 (vs. related to COVID-19). When prosocial and proself spending involved identical COVID-19 PPEs items, prosocial behavior's benefits were detectable only on empathy and social connectedness, but not on posttask positive affect. These findings suggest that while there are boundary conditions to be considered, generous action offers one strategy to bolster well-being during the pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Stay-at-home, Safe at Home? A survey of parental home safety practices before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To slow the spread of COVID-19, many nonessential businesses, daycares, and schools closed, and areas imposed "stay-at-home" orders. Closures led to young children spending more time at home, traditionally, the place where more than one-half of unintentional pediatric injuries occur. The objective of the current study was to describe parental safety perceptions and confidence, safety device purchase and installation, and injury prevention practices and behaviors, in homes with children 6 years of age and younger, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey with a convenience sample of US participants, 18 years or older, was conducted from November 2020 to February 2021. Parents of children (≤ 6 years) were recruited via social media ads and posts on Facebook and Twitter and invited to complete an anonymous, online survey about their home safety practices before and during the COVID-19 stay-at-home order. Upon completion, parents could participate in a prize drawing to receive one of five $100 gift cards. RESULTS: A total of 499 participants completed the survey. Most (47.9%) were 45-54 years of age and reported the amount of time at home increased for them (93.9%) and their children (90.6%) during the stay-at-home period. Thirty-seven percent (36.9%) of parents considered their homes safe but recognized room for improvement and felt confident in their ability to make their homes safe for their children (72.8%). From the time before until the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders were in place, parents increased their home injury prevention practices (42.3%). Parents that had identified unsafe areas in the home before the stay-at-home order were significantly more likely to increase their safety behaviors, take childproofing actions, and purchase or install safety devices during the stay-at-home order (p < 0.0001). Parents with younger children (5 years) were significantly more likely than parents with older children to take childproofing actions (p < .0001) including purchasing and installing safety devices (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Spending more time at home during the COVID-19 pandemic may have helped the sampled parents, especially those with younger children, identify unsafe areas in their homes and encourage them to modify their behaviors, and purchase and install safety devices to help make their homes safer for their children.

A single center study investigating the olfactory dysfunction of hospitalized patients with PCRconfirmed, active COVID-19 disease

Background A loss of smell is often the first symptom of a COVID-19 infection. This study examined olfactory dysfunction (OD) of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in a single centre in a cross-sectional and longitudinal fashion. Methodology 27 hospitalized patients with PCR-confirmed, active COVID-19 disease were included. Olfactory history was taken using a questionnaire. Olfactory function was evaluated with Sniffin' Sticks tests (threshold-, discrimination- and identification test;TDI). Follow-up checks via identification testing were performed every two days during hospitalization, and 4 months after the first test. Results Looking at the TDI scores, 25 of 27 patients (93 %) showed an OD. Of those, 16 patients (64 %) reported a subjective normosmia. The assessment of the TDI score subcategories showed that the affected participants performed poor in the discrimination and the threshold tests, whereas the smell identification skills were impeded the least. When looking solely at the identification tests, only 17 of 27 individuals (63 %) showed pathologic scores. Conclusions Olfactory testing reveals a higher rate of affected individuals than subjective evaluation in COVID-19 patients. In addition, a mere testing of the identification abilities seems insufficient to diagnose ODs in these patients. A comprehensive test battery looking at threshold, discrimination and identification skills is recommendable.

Policy stringency and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of data from 15 countries.

BACKGROUND: To date, public health policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic have been evaluated on the basis of their ability to reduce transmission and minimise economic harm. We aimed to assess the association between COVID-19 policy restrictions and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this longitudinal analysis, we combined daily policy stringency data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker with psychological distress scores and life evaluations captured in the Imperial College London-YouGov COVID-19 Behaviour Tracker Global Survey in fortnightly cross-sections from samples of 15 countries between April 27, 2020, and June 28, 2021. The mental health questions provided a sample size of 432 642 valid responses, with an average of 14 918 responses every 2 weeks. To investigate how policy stringency was associated with mental health, we considered two potential mediators: observed physical distancing and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. Countries were grouped on the basis of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic as those pursuing an elimination strategy (countries that aimed to eliminate community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within their borders) or those pursuing a mitigation strategy (countries that aimed to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission). Using a combined dataset of country-level and individual-level data, we estimated linear regression models with country-fixed effects (ie, dummy variables representing the countries in our sample) and with individual and contextual covariates. Additionally, we analysed data from a sample of Nordic countries, to compare Sweden (that pursued a mitigation strategy) to other Nordic countries (that adopted a near-elimination strategy). FINDINGS: Controlling for individual and contextual variables, higher policy stringency was associated with higher mean psychological distress scores and lower life evaluations (standardised coefficients ß=0·014 [95% CI 0·005 to 0·023] for psychological distress; ß=-0·010 [-0·015 to -0·004] for life evaluation). Pandemic intensity (number of deaths per 100 000 inhabitants) was also associated with higher mean psychological distress scores and lower life evaluations (standardised coefficients ß=0·016 [0·008 to 0·025] for psychological distress; ß=-0·010 [-0·017 to -0·004] for life evaluation). The negative association between policy stringency and mental health was mediated by observed physical distancing and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. We observed that countries pursuing an elimination strategy used different policy timings and intensities compared with countries pursuing a mitigation strategy. The containment policies of countries pursuing elimination strategies were on average less stringent, and fewer deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: Changes in mental health measures during the first 15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic were small. More stringent COVID-19 policies were associated with poorer mental health. Elimination strategies minimised transmission and deaths, while restricting mental health effects. FUNDING: None.

Mental Health During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review and Recommendations for Moving Forward.

COVID-19 has infected millions of people and upended the lives of most humans on the planet. Researchers from across the psychological sciences have sought to document and investigate the impact of COVID-19 in myriad ways, causing an explosion of research that is broad in scope, varied in methods, and challenging to consolidate. Because policy and practice aimed at helping people live healthier and happier lives requires insight from robust patterns of evidence, this article provides a rapid and thorough summary of high-quality studies available through early 2021 examining the mental-health consequences of living through the COVID-19 pandemic. Our review of the evidence indicates that anxiety, depression, and distress increased in the early months of the pandemic. Meanwhile, suicide rates, life satisfaction, and loneliness remained largely stable throughout the first year of the pandemic. In response to these insights, we present seven recommendations (one urgent, two short-term, and four ongoing) to support mental health during the pandemic and beyond.

Well-being Analysis Favours a Virus-Elimination Strategy for COVID-19

A well-being approach requires looking beyond COVID-19 deaths to compare the performance of elimination versus mitigation strategies as measured by other important supports for well-being. What do the data show? Our comparison based on 2020 data shows a virus elimination strategy to be more successful than other options, whether measured in terms of COVID-19 deaths, overall excess deaths, income, unemployment, trust, or mental and physical health. Countries that chose and followed a strategy of reducing community transmission to zero and keeping it there saved lives and better protected income and employment, all without obvious costs to either the social fabric or the mental health of their populations.

Brief exposure to social media during the COVID-19 pandemic: Doom-scrolling has negative emotional consequences, but kindness-scrolling does not.

People often seek out information as a means of coping with challenging situations. Attuning to negative information can be adaptive because it alerts people to the risks in their environment, thereby preparing them for similar threats in the future. But is this behaviour adaptive during a pandemic when bad news is ubiquitous? We examine the emotional consequences of exposure to brief snippets of COVID-related news via a Twitter feed (Study 1), or a YouTube reaction video (Study 2). Compared to a no-information exposure group, consumption of just 2-4 minutes of COVID-related news led to immediate and significant reductions in positive affect (Studies 1 and 2) and optimism (Study 2). Exposure to COVID-related kind acts did not have the same negative consequences, suggesting that not all social media exposure is detrimental for well-being. We discuss strategies to counteract the negative emotional consequences of exposure to negative news on social media.

Willingness to Receive a COVID-19 Vaccination Among Incarcerated or Detained Persons in Correctional and Detention Facilities - Four States, September-December 2020.

Incarcerated and detained persons are at increased risk for acquiring COVID-19. However, little is known about their willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. During September-December 2020, residents in three prisons and 13 jails in four states were surveyed regarding their willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccination and their reasons for COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy or refusal. Among 5,110 participants, 2,294 (44.9%) said they would receive a COVID-19 vaccination, 498 (9.8%) said they would hesitate to receive it, and 2,318 (45.4%) said they would refuse to receive it. Willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccination was lowest among Black/African American (Black) (36.7%; 510 of 1,390) persons, participants aged 18-29 years (38.5%; 583 of 1,516), and those who lived in jails versus prisons (43.7%; 1,850 of 4,232). Common reasons reported for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were waiting for more information (54.8%) and efficacy or safety concerns (31.0%). The most common reason for COVID-19 vaccination refusal was distrust of health care, correctional, or government personnel or institutions (20.1%). Public health interventions to improve vaccine confidence and trust are needed to increase vaccination acceptance by incarcerated or detained persons.

Recognizing the Impact of COVID-19 on the Poor Alters Attitudes Towards Poverty and Inequality.

The novel Coronavirus that spread around the world in early 2020 triggered a global pandemic and economic downturn that affected nearly everyone. Yet the crisis had a disproportionate impact on the poor and revealed how easily working-class individuals' financial security can be destabilised by factors beyond personal control. In a pre-registered longitudinal study of Americans (N = 233) spanning April 2019 to May 2020, we tested whether the pandemic altered beliefs about the extent to which poverty is caused by external forces and internal dispositions and support for economic inequality. Over this timespan, participants revealed a shift in their attributions for poverty, reporting that poverty is more strongly impacted by external-situational causes and less by internal-dispositional causes. However, we did not detect an overall mean-level change in opposition to inequality or support for government intervention. Instead, only for those who most strongly recognized the negative impact of COVID-19 did changes in poverty attributions translate to decreased support for inequality, and increased support for government intervention to help the poor.

Neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life in Spanish patients with Alzheimer's disease during the COVID-19 lockdown.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The COVID-19 epidemic is affecting almost all individuals worldwide, and patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and amnesic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are particularly at risk due to their characteristics and age. We analysed the impact of the pandemic on these patients' neuropsychiatric symptoms and their quality of life after 5 weeks of lockdown in Spain. METHODS: A total of 40 patients with a diagnosis of MCI (n = 20) or mild AD (n = 20) from the Cognitive Stimulation Program of the Cognitive Disorders Unit were evaluated. All patients had undergone a previous evaluation during the month before the lockdown, and were re-evaluated after 5 weeks of lockdown. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and EuroQol-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D) were used to assess neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients and the quality of life in patients as well in caregivers. RESULTS: The mean (SD) total baseline NPI score was 33.75 (22.28), compared with 39.05 (27.96) after confinement (P = 0.028). The most frequently affected neuropsychiatric symptoms were apathy [4.15 (3.78) vs. 5.75 (4.02); P = 0.002] and anxiety [3.95 (3.73) vs. 5.30 (4.01); P = 0.006] in patients with MCI, and apathy [2.35 (2.70) vs. 3.75 (3.78); P = 0.036], agitation [0.45 (1.14) vs. 1.50 (2.66); P = 0.029] and aberrant motor behaviour [1.25 (2.86) vs. 2.00 (2.93); P = 0.044] in patients with AD. We did not observe differences in EQ-5D scores during the re-evaluation. The 30% of patients and 40% of caregivers reported a worsening of the patients' health status during confinement. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show the worsening of neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with AD and MCI during 5 weeks of lockdown, with agitation, apathy and aberrant motor activity being the most affected symptoms.