ABSTRACT
The objective of this pilot study was to determine the health needs of dairy farm workers and the feasibility of on-farm health risk screenings in the Texas Panhandle and South Plains. A cross-sectional study design was used to collect survey responses concerning health needs, occupational, and economic characteristics among 300 dairy workers between April 2020 and July 2021. Participants were predominantly immigrant Hispanic (88.8%) males (83.0%) of approximately 34.4 (SD 9.9) years of age, worked 6.0 (SD 0.4; Range 3-7) days a week and 9.9 (SD 1.5; Range 6-13) hours a day, earning a mean hourly rate of $13.40 (SD $2.80). Participants reported interest in attending on-farm health risk screenings (93.8%) as well as receiving a COVID-19 vaccine if it became available (86.4%). Health service categories were ranked from: (1st "most important") preventative care (Mean Rank 2.3), (2nd) laboratory and diagnostic care (Mean Rank 2.6), (3rd) nutritional and physical fitness support (Mean Rank 2.8), (4th) mental health care (Mean Rank 3.4), and (5th) workplace interventions (Mean Rank 3.6). Participants reported obtaining health information predominantly from internet searches (32.0%) and social media (17.7%). Findings suggest there is need and interest for on-farm health risk screenings and education among immigrant dairy workers in the Texas Panhandle-South Plains region. Addressing known barriers to health should be paramount to the organization of on-farm health risk screenings.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic public health restrictions on our drip and ship mechanical thrombectomy program in Santiago Chile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database comparing two cohorts, one during a two-year period before COVID-19 and the second during the two years of the pandemic at our metropolitan stroke program. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included in the pre COVID-19 cohort (cohort 1) and 121 in the COVID-19 cohort (cohort 2). There was a significant difference between cohorts, with older patients, different occlusion sites and higher door to arterial puncture time during the COVID-19 period. A non-significant trend for worse 90-day outcomes and higher mortality was present in cohort 2. There were no statistical differences in safety treatment parameters. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 pandemic has had a measurable impact on our mechanical thrombectomy program. Results showed similarities to other reported Latin American series, where less robust health systems could adapt less efficiently compared to developed countries. After two years of public health restrictions, there were changes in the treatment population characteristics, delay in some internal management metrics and a non-significant trend to worse 90-day outcomes and higher mortality.
Subject(s)
Brain Ischemia , COVID-19 , Stroke , Humans , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , Brain Ischemia/therapy , Thrombectomy/adverse effects , Thrombectomy/methods , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Public Health , Treatment Outcome , Stroke/diagnosis , Stroke/therapy , Stroke/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Several vaccines have been developed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. CoronaVac®, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has demonstrated safety and immunogenicity, preventing severe COVID-19 cases. We investigate the safety and non-inferiority of two immunization schedules of CoronaVac® in a non-inferiority trial in healthy adults. A total of 2302 healthy adults were enrolled at 8 centers in Chile and randomly assigned to two vaccination schedules, receiving two doses with either 14 or 28 days between each. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were solicited adverse events (AEs) within 7 days of each dose, and comparing the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection 14 days after the second dose between the schedules, respectively. The most frequent local AE was pain at the injection site, which was less frequent in participants aged ≥60 years. Other local AEs were reported in less than 5% of participants. The most frequent systemic AEs were headache, fatigue, and myalgia. Most AEs were mild and transient. There were no significant differences for local and systemic AEs between schedules. A total of 58 COVID-19 cases were confirmed, and all but 2 of them were mild. No differences were observed in the proportion of COVID-19 cases between schedules. CoronaVac® is safe, especially in ≥60-year-old participants. Both schedules protected against COVID-19 hospitalization.
ABSTRACT
Several vaccines have been developed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. CoronaVac®, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has demonstrated safety and immunogenicity, preventing severe COVID-19 cases. We investigate the safety and non-inferiority of two immunization schedules of CoronaVac® in a non-inferiority trial in healthy adults. A total of 2302 healthy adults were enrolled at 8 centers in Chile and randomly assigned to two vaccination schedules, receiving two doses with either 14 or 28 days between each. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were solicited adverse events (AEs) within 7 days of each dose, and comparing the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection 14 days after the second dose between the schedules, respectively. The most frequent local AE was pain at the injection site, which was less frequent in participants aged ≥60 years. Other local AEs were reported in less than 5% of participants. The most frequent systemic AEs were headache, fatigue, and myalgia. Most AEs were mild and transient. There were no significant differences for local and systemic AEs between schedules. A total of 58 COVID-19 cases were confirmed, and all but 2 of them were mild. No differences were observed in the proportion of COVID-19 cases between schedules. CoronaVac® is safe, especially in ≥60-year-old participants. Both schedules protected against COVID-19 hospitalization.