The gendered impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academics working in medical imaging and radiation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers have been particularly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, as have those educating them, albeit differently. Several papers have identified a gendered difference in the impact of the pandemic. This study aims to determine impact of COVID-19 on the health and wellbeing of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (MIRT) academics. METHODS: An electronic survey was designed in English on Qualtrics and distributed via email and online platforms to MIRT academics. Fifty-one questions were used; demographic (n = 9), work patterns (n = 11), general health (n = 8), mental health (n = 2), physical health (n = 10), and workload (n = 11). Overall, 46 were quantitative and five were qualitative 'open-ended' questions. The survey was open between 3rd March 2021 to 1st May 2021. Quantitative analysis was carried out using MS Excel v 16.61.1ss and SPSS v26. RESULTS: The survey reached 32 countries globally and 412 participants; 23.5% identified as men (n = 97) and 76.5% as women (n = 315). Women reported worse sleep quality than men and overwhelmingly felt they would not like to work remotely again if given a choice. A higher percentage of males, 73% versus 40.5% of females reported getting outdoors less. The CORE-10 validated questionnaire found that 10.3% of males (n = 42) and 2.7% of females (n = 11) experienced severe psychological distress the week immediately before the survey was conducted. CONCLUSION: While the study has identified some gender-related differences in the impact of COVID-19 on the mental and physical health of MIRT academics, both males and females have experienced significant deterioration in health and wellbeing due to the pandemic. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Developing mental health support for MIRT academics and defining optimum methods for raising awareness is recommended.

Maternal transmission of SARS-COV-2 to the neonate, and possible routes for such transmission: a systematic review and critical analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early reports of COVID-19 in pregnancy described management by caesarean, strict isolation of the neonate and formula feeding. Is this practice justified? OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of the neonate becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 by mode of delivery, type of infant feeding and mother-infant interaction. SEARCH STRATEGY: Two biomedical databases were searched between September 2019 and June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Case reports or case series of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19, where neonatal outcomes were reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted on mode of delivery, infant infection status, infant feeding and mother-infant interaction. For reported infant infection, a critical analysis was performed to evaluate the likelihood of vertical transmission. MAIN RESULTS: Forty nine studies included information on mode of delivery and infant infection status for 655 women and 666 neonates. In all, 28/666 (4%) tested positive postnatally. Of babies born vaginally, 8/292 (2.7%) tested positivecompared with 20/374 (5.3%) born by Caesarean. Information on feeding and baby separation were often missing, but of reported breastfed babies 7/148 (4.7%) tested positive compared with 3/56 (5.3%) for reported formula fed ones. Of babies reported as nursed with their mother 4/107 (3.7%) tested positive, compared with 6/46 (13%) for those who were reported as isolated. CONCLUSIONS: Neonatal COVID-19 infection is uncommon, rarely symptomatic, and the rate of infection is no greater when the baby is born vaginally, breastfed or remains with the mother. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Risk of neonatal infection with COVID-19 by delivery route, infant feeding and mother-baby interaction.