Feeling the absence of touch: Distancing, distress, regulation, and relationships in the context of COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, physical distancing guidelines were implemented to reduce viral spread, altering typical social interactions and reducing the amount of physical contact and affectionate touch many individuals experienced. The pandemic also caused psychological distress, perhaps in part related to reductions in affectionate touch with close others. We theorized that this would be particularly problematic for individuals reliant on affectionate touch to help regulate their emotions. Using online survey data collected nationwide from married or romantically partnered adults (N = 585), we examined how physical distancing (moderated by cohabiting with spouse/partner) and affectionate touch with close others (moderated by individual differences in typical use and efficacy of touch for affect regulation [TAR]) related to individual psychological distress and romantic relationship quality. As hypothesized, more physical distancing was associated with less affectionate touch among non-cohabiters, but surprisingly with more touch among cohabiters. Also as hypothesized, participants higher in TAR and experiencing less affectionate touch reported more psychological distress than those similarly high in TAR and experiencing more affectionate touch, or than those lower in TAR. Unexpectedly, more physical distancing was associated directly with lower psychological distress and better relationship quality. Better relationship quality was linked directly to more affectionate touch and greater endorsement of TAR. Thus, for those cohabiting in satisfying romantic relationships, physical distancing may facilitate relationship-positive behaviors. Further, individual differences in TAR may influence the potency of touch effects on mood and stress. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Rapid COVID-19 Testing and On-site Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in an Underresourced Area of Salt Lake City, Utah, December 2020-April 2021.

This case study describes how we paired free SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing with on-site case investigation and contact tracing at a drive-through site in an underresourced area of Salt Lake City. Residents of this area had lower rates of employment and health insurance and higher rates of poverty than in the Utah general population. People were given an option to remain on-site and wait until their test results were ready. If a vehicle occupant received a positive test result, the case investigation occurred on-site; contact tracing with the other vehicle occupants was also initiated. People were provided resources to support isolation and quarantine. Bilingual staff who spoke Spanish were incorporated into the workflow. From December 2020 through April 2021, public health staff administered 39 587 rapid tests; 4094 people received a positive test result and 1133 stayed for on-site case investigation. More than half (60.5%) of people with a positive test result who agreed to stay for on-site case investigation were Hispanic or self-reported belonging to a non-Hispanic racial minority group (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or other racial identities). Pairing rapid antigen testing with on-site case investigation and contact tracing is feasible and improved the timeliness of case investigation by ≥1 day. On-site vaccination services were later integrated. Future emergency responses might consider assisting underresourced communities with on-site services that provide convenient and accessible public health interventions. By providing dependable and reliable services, we were able to achieve buy-in and become a consistent resource for those in the community.

SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) Variant Transmission Within Households - Four U.S. Jurisdictions, November 2021-February 2022.

The B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant, first detected in November 2021, was responsible for a surge in U.S. infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, during December 2021-January 2022 (1). To investigate the effectiveness of prevention strategies in household settings, CDC partnered with four U.S. jurisdictions to describe Omicron household transmission during November 2021-February 2022. Persons with sequence-confirmed Omicron infection and their household contacts were interviewed. Omicron transmission occurred in 124 (67.8%) of 183 households. Among 431 household contacts, 227 were classified as having a case of COVID-19 (attack rate [AR] = 52.7%).† The ARs among household contacts of index patients who had received a COVID-19 booster dose, of fully vaccinated index patients who completed their COVID-19 primary series within the previous 5 months, and of unvaccinated index patients were 42.7% (47 of 110), 43.6% (17 of 39), and 63.9% (69 of 108), respectively. The AR was lower among household contacts of index patients who isolated (41.2%, 99 of 240) compared with those of index patients who did not isolate (67.5%, 112 of 166) (p-value <0.01). Similarly, the AR was lower among household contacts of index patients who ever wore a mask at home during their potentially infectious period (39.5%, 88 of 223) compared with those of index patients who never wore a mask at home (68.9%, 124 of 180) (p-value <0.01). Multicomponent COVID-19 prevention strategies, including up-to-date vaccination, isolation of infected persons, and mask use at home, are critical to reducing Omicron transmission in household settings.

Maternal-Newborn Health System Changes and Outcomes in Ontario, Canada, During Wave 1 of the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the population-level impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related obstetric practice changes on maternal and newborn outcomes. METHODS: Segmented regression analysis examined changes that occurred 240 weeks pre-pandemic through the first 32 weeks of the pandemic using data from Ontario's Better Outcomes Registry & Network. Outcomes included birth location, length of stay, labour analgesia, mode of delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth. Immediate and gradual effects were modelled with terms representing changes in intercepts and slopes, corresponding to the start of the pandemic. RESULTS: There were 799 893 eligible pregnant individuals included in the analysis; 705 767 delivered in the pre-pandemic period and 94 126 during the pandemic wave 1 period. Significant immediate decreases were observed for hospital births (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99), length of stay (median change -3.29 h; 95% CI -3.81 to -2.77), use of nitrous oxide (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.13) and general anesthesia (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.58- 0.81), and trial of labour after cesarean (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.96). Conversely, there were significant immediate increases in home births (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.21-1.51), and use of epidural (RR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04) and regional anesthesia (RR 1.01; 95% CI 1.01-1.02). There were no significant immediate changes for any other outcomes, including preterm birth (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05) and stillbirth (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.87-1.42). CONCLUSION: Provincial health system changes implemented at the start of the pandemic resulted in immediate clinical practice changes but not insignificant increases in adverse outcomes.

Feeling the Absence of Touch: Distancing, Distress, Regulation, and Relationships in the Context of COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, physical distancing guidelines were implemented to reduce viral spread, altering typical social interactions and reducing the amount of physical contact and affectionate touch many individuals experienced. The pandemic also caused psychological distress, perhaps in part related to reductions in affectionate touch with close others. We theorized that this would be particularly problematic for individuals reliant on affectionate touch to help regulate their emotions. Using online survey data collected nationwide from married or romantically partnered adults (N = 585), we examined how physical distancing (moderated by cohabiting with spouse/partner) and affectionate touch with close others (moderated by individual differences in typical use and efficacy of touch for affect regulation [TAR]) related to individual psychological distress and romantic relationship quality. As hypothesized, more physical distancing was associated with less affectionate touch among non-cohabiters, but surprisingly with more touch among cohabiters. Also as hypothesized, participants higher in TAR and experiencing less affectionate touch reported more psychological distress than those similarly high in TAR and experiencing more affectionate touch, or than those lower in TAR. Unexpectedly, more physical distancing was associated directly with lower psychological distress and better relationship quality. Better relationship quality was linked directly to more affectionate touch and greater endorsement of TAR. Thus, for those cohabiting in satisfying romantic relationships, physical distancing may facilitate relationship-positive behaviors. Further, individual differences in TAR may influence the potency of touch effects on mood and stress.