Authors' response: Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias.

We thank van Tongeren et al for responding to our study on occupational disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection risks during the first pandemic wave in Germany (1). The authors address the potential for bias resulting from differential testing between occupational groups and propose an alternative analytical strategy for dealing with selective testing. In the following, we want to discuss two aspects of this issue, namely (i) the extent and reasons of differential testing in our cohort and (ii) the advantages and disadvantages of different analytical approaches to study risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study relied on nationwide prospective cohort data including more than 100 000 workers in order to compare the incidence of infections between different occupations and occupational status positions. We found elevated infection risks in personal services and business administration, in essential occupations (including health care) and among people in higher occupational status positions (ie, managers and highly skilled workers) during the first pandemic wave in Germany (2). Van Tongeren's et al main concern is that the correlations found could be affected by a systematic bias because people in healthcare professions get tested more often than employees in other professions. A second argument is that better-off people could be more likely to use testing as they are less affected by direct costs (prices for testing) and the economic hardship associated with a positive test result (eg, loss of earnings in the event of sick leave). We share the authors' view that differential testing must be considered when analysing and interpreting the data. Thus, in our study, we examined the proportion of tests conducted in each occupational group as part of the sensitivity analyses (see supplementary figure S1, accessible at www.sjweh.fi/article/4037). As expected, testing proportions were exceptionally high in medical occupations (due to employer requirements). However, we did not observe systematic differences among non-medical occupations or when categorising by skill-level or managerial responsibility. This might be explained by several reasons. First, SARS-CoV-2 testing was free of charge during the first pandemic wave in Germany, but reporting a risk contact or having symptoms was a necessary condition for testing ( https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/coronavirus/chronik-coronavirus.html (accessed 5 September 2022). The newspaper article cited by van Tongeren et al is misleading as it refers to a calendar date after our study period. Second, different motivation for testing due to economic hardship in case of a positive test result is an unlikely explanation, because Germany has a universal healthcare system, including paid sick leave and sickness benefits for all workers (3). Self-employed people carry greater financial risks in case of sickness. We therefore included self-employment in the multivariable analyses to address this potential source of bias. While the observed inverse social gradient may be surprising, it actually matches with findings of ecological studies from Germany (4, 5), the United States (6, 7) as well as Spain, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands, Israel, and Hong Kong (8), all of which observed higher infection rates in wealthier neighbourhoods during the initial outbreak phase of the pandemic. One possible explanation is the higher mobility of managers and better educated workers, who are more likely to participate in meetings and engage in business travel and holiday trips like skiing. Given the increasing number of studies providing evidence for this hypothesis, we conclude that the inverse social gradient in our study likely reflects different exposure probabilities and is not a result of systematic bias. This also holds true for the elevated infection risks in essential workers, which is actually corroborated by a large body of research (9-11). Regarding differential likelihood of testing, van Tongeren et al state that "[i]t is relatively simple to address this problem by using a test-negative design" (1). As van Tongeren et al describe, this is a case-control approach only including individuals who were tested (without considering those who were not tested). However, the proposed analytical strategy can lead to another (more serious) selection bias if testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups (12). This can be easily illustrated when comparing the results based on a time-incidence design with those obtained by a test-negative design as shown in table 1 (see PDF). Both approaches show similar results in terms of vertical occupational differences. Infection was more common if individuals had a high skill level or had a managerial position, but associations were stronger in the time-incidence design and did not reach statistical significance in the test-negative design (as indicated by the confidence intervals overlapping "1"). Unfortunately, the test-negative approach relies on a strongly reduced sample size and thus results in greater statistical uncertainty and loss of statistical power (13). In contrast, the test-negative design yields a different picture when estimating the association between essential occupation and infection risk: In this analysis, essential workers did not differ from non-essential workers in their chance of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the test-negative design even exhibits a lower chance for essential workers). This is rather counter-intuitive and is not in accordance with what we know about the occupational hazards of healthcare workers during the pandemic (14). The main problem is that proportions of positive tests are highly unreliable when testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups. As essential workers were tested more often without being symptomatic (due to employer requirements), a lower proportion of positive tests in this group does not necessarily correspond to a lower risk of infection. Consequently, we are not convinced that the test-negative design should be the 'gold standard' for studying risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infections (15). Especially problematic is the loss of statistical power (increasing the probability of a type II error) and the low validity of the test-positivity when test criteria and/or test proportions differ between groups. References 1. van Tongeren M, Rhodes S, Pearce N. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48(7):586-587. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4052. 2. Reuter M, Rigó M, Formazin M, Liebers F, Latza U, Castell S, et al. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48:446-56. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4037. 3. Busse R, Blümel M, Knieps F, Bärnighausen T. Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition. Lancet 2017;390:882-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31280-1. 4. Wachtler B, Michalski N, Nowossadeck E, Diercke M, Wahrendorf M, Santos-Hövener C, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection - First results from an analysis of surveillance data from Germany. J Heal Monit 2020;5:18-29. https://doi.org/10.25646/7057. 5. Plümper T, Neumayer E. The pandemic predominantly hits poor neighbourhoods? SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 fatalities in German districts. Eur J Public Health 2020;30:1176-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa168. 6. Abedi V, Olulana O, Avula V, Chaudhary D, Khan A, Shahjouei S, et al. Racial, Economic, and Health Inequality and COVID-19 Infection in the United States. J Racial Ethn Heal Disparities 2021;8:732-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00833-4. 7. Mukherji N. The Social and Economic Factors Underlying the Incidence of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in US Counties During the Initial Outbreak Phase. Rev Reg Stud 2022;52. https://doi.org/10.52324/001c.35255. 8. Beese F, Waldhauer J, Wollgast L, Pförtner T, Wahrendorf M, Haller S, et al. Temporal Dynamics of Socioeconomic Inequalities in COVID-19 Outcomes Over the Course of the Pandemic-A Scoping Review. Int J Public Health 2022;67:1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2022.1605128. 9. Nguyen LH, Drew DA, Graham MS, Joshi AD, Guo C-G, Ma W, et al. Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Heal 2020;5:e475-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30164-X. 10. Chou R, Dana T, Buckley DI, Selph S, Fu R, Totten AM. Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers. Ann Intern Med 2020;173:120-36. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1632. 11. Stringhini S, Zaballa M-E, Pullen N, de Mestral C, Perez-Saez J, Dumont R, et al. Large variation in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among essential workers in Geneva, Switzerland. Nat Commun 2021;12:3455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23796-4. 12. Accorsi EK, Qiu X, Rumpler E, Kennedy-Shaffer L, Kahn R, Joshi K, et al. How to detect and reduce potential sources of biases in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36:179-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00727-7. 13. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Editio. New York: Routledge; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587. 14. The Lancet. The plight of essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020;395:1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31200-9. 15. Vandenbroucke JP, Brickley EB, Pearce N, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE. The Evolving Usefulness of the Test-negative Design in Studying Risk Factors for COVID-19. Epidemiology 2022;33:e7-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001438.

Health and Care Dependency of Older Adults in Dresden, Germany: Results from the LAB60+ Study.

As the population in Europe ages, an increased focus on the health of older adults is necessary. The purpose of the population-based LAB60+ study was to examine the current health and care situation of the population of older adults in Dresden, Germany, and to assess the effect of age, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES) on health outcomes. In the first half of 2021, 2399 out of 6004 randomly sampled residents of Dresden aged 60 years or older answered questions on their chronic conditions, care dependency, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and well-being, among others. Of the participants, 91.6% were afflicted with at least one chronic condition, and 73.1% had multimorbidities. More than one-tenth (11.3%) of participants were care dependent. Lower levels of HRQoL and well-being were observed compared to a published German reference population, perhaps because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Gender differences were observed for some chronic health conditions, and women had a higher risk for lower HRQoL, well-being, and depressivity compared to men. A low SES was associated with a higher risk of the vast majority of health outcomes. Particularly, socioeconomic factors and gender-related inequalities should be considered for the development of prevention and health-promoting measures during late life.

Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the occupational risk for a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a nationwide sample of German workers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 February-31 August 2020). METHODS: We used the data of 108 960 workers who participated in a COVID follow-up survey of the German National Cohort (NAKO). Occupational characteristics were derived from the German Classification of Occupations 2010 (Klassifikation der Berufe 2010). PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were assessed from self-reports. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using robust Poisson regression, adjusted for person-time at risk, age, sex, migration background, study center, working hours, and employment relationship. RESULTS: The IR was 3.7 infections per 1000 workers [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3-4.1]. IR differed by occupational sector, with the highest rates observed in personal (IR 4.8, 95% CI 4.0-5.6) and business administration (IR 3.4, 95% CI 2.8-3.9) services and the lowest rates in occupations related to the production of goods (IR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.6). Infections were more frequent among essential workers compared with workers in non-essential occupations (IRR 1.95, 95% CI 1.59-2.40) and among highly skilled compared with skilled professions (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: The results emphasize higher infection risks in essential occupations and personal-related services, especially in the healthcare sector. Additionally, we found evidence that infections were more common in higher occupational status positions at the beginning of the pandemic.

[Experiences of Stigmatization Among Professional Caregivers in the Context of Covid-19 - a Qualitative Study]. / Stigmatisierungserfahrungen bei beruflich Pflegenden im Kontext von Covid-19 ­ eine Qualitative Studie.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare workers seem to be more affected by stigma due to the Covid-19 pandemic compared to other occupational groups. However, there is very little research on this topic. The aims of the present study were to investigate pandemic-related stigmatization experiences among nursing and medical staff in Germany and determine the type and effects of stigmatization as well as appropriate prevention and intervention measures. METHODS: The interviews were conducted by a semi-structured interview guide and evaluated using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen nurses participated in the interviews. Sources of stigmatization were friends and acquaintances, family members, executives, colleagues, patients and their relatives, strangers and public media. Some of the interviewed persons reported self-stigmatization. A common cause of stigma in the private environment was the fear of infection. In the context of the work, illness-related absence was also named as one of the causes of stigma. The interviewees reported about distancing and avoiding contact, as well as allegations they were faced with. As a result, they suffered from negative feelings and partially from psychosomatic complaints. Some interviewees tried to avoid stigmatization by concealing their own profession or place of work. Help was offered in private and professional context in form of conversations and encouragement. CONCLUSION: Stigmatization of healthcare professionals during the pandemic has hardly been explored in Germany. There is a particular need for research to quantify the extent, manifestations and effects of work-related stigmatization and to develop suitable preventive measures at workplace and outside of work.

The isolated effect of age on the risk of COVID-19 severe outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Increased age has been reported to be a factor for COVID-19 severe outcomes. However, many studies do not consider the age dependency of comorbidities, which influence the course of disease. Protection strategies often target individuals after a certain age, which may not necessarily be evidence based. The aim of this review was to quantify the isolated effect of age on hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation and death. METHODS: This review was based on an umbrella review, in which Pubmed, Embase and preprint databases were searched on 10 December 2020, for relevant reviews on COVID-19 disease severity. Two independent reviewers evaluated the primary studies using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results were extracted, and each study was assessed for risk of bias. The isolated effect of age was estimated by meta-analysis, and the quality of evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. RESULTS: Seventy studies met our inclusion criteria (case mortality: n=14, in-hospital mortality: n=44, hospitalisation: n=16, admission to ICU: n=12, mechanical ventilation: n=7). The risk of in-hospital and case mortality increased per age year by 5.7% and 7.4%, respectively (effect size (ES) in-hospital mortality=1.057, 95% CI 1.038 to 1.054; ES case mortality=1.074, 95% CI 1.061 to 1.087), while the risk of hospitalisation increased by 3.4% per age year (ES=1.034, 95% CI 1.021 to 1.048). No increased risk was observed for ICU admission and intubation by age year. There was no evidence of a specific age threshold at which the risk accelerates considerably. The confidence of evidence was high for mortality and hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a best-possible quantification of the increase in COVID-19 disease severity due to age. Rather than implementing age thresholds, prevention programmes should consider the continuous increase in risk. There is a need for continuous, high-quality research and 'living' reviews to evaluate the evidence throughout the pandemic, as results may change due to varying circumstances.

[Impact of wearing face masks in public to prevent infectious diseases on the psychosocial development in children and adolescents: a systematic review]. / Beeinflussung der psychosozialen Entwicklung von Kindern und Jugendlichen durch das Tragen von Gesichtsmasken im öffentlichen Raum zur Prävention von Infektionskrankheiten: Ein systematischer Review.

BACKGROUND: Wearing face masks in public is recommended under certain circumstances in order to prevent infectious diseases transmitted through droplets. AIM: The objective was to compile all German and English research results from peer-reviewed journal articles using a sensitive literature search on the effects of mask-wearing for preventing infectious diseases on the psychosocial development of children and adolescents. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted considering different study designs (search period up until 12 July 2021). The risk of bias in the studies was determined using a risk of bias procedure. A descriptive-narrative synthesis of the results was performed. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included, and the overall risk of bias was estimated to be high in all primary studies. There are some indications from the included surveys that children, adolescents, and their teachers in (pre)schools perceived facial expression processing as impaired due to mask wearing, which were confirmed by several experimental studies. Two studies reported psychological symptoms like anxiety and stress as well as concentration and learning problems due to wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic. One survey study during the 2002/2003 SARS pandemic examined oral examination performance in English as a foreign language and showed no difference between the "mask" and "no mask" conditions. DISCUSSION: Only little evidence can be derived on the effects of wearing mouth-nose protection on different developmental areas of children and adolescents based on the small number of studies. There is a lack of research data regarding the following outcomes: psychological development, language development, emotional development, social behavior, school success, and participation. Further qualitative studies and epidemiological studies are required.

A Rapid Review on the Influence of COVID-19 Lockdown and Quarantine Measures on Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors in the General Population.

Preceding coronavirus outbreaks resulted in social isolation, which in turn is associated with cardiovascular consequences. Whether the current COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacts cardiovascular health is unclear. The aim of the rapid review was to investigate, whether COVID-19 lockdown influences modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (i.e., physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, smoking, alcohol use, unhealthy diet, obesity, bad blood lipids, and hypertension) in the general population. Medline and EMBASE were searched until March 2021. Title, abstracts, and full texts were screened by one reviewer and 20% by a second reviewer. Only studies using probability sampling were included in order to ensure the representativeness of the target population. Data extraction and critical appraisal were done by one reviewer and double-checked by another reviewer. We identified 32 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Findings show that physical activity decreased, and sedentary behaviour increased among all age groups during the COVID-19 lockdown. Among adults, alcohol consumption increased, dietary quality worsened, and the amount of food intake increased. Some adults reported weight gain. Studies on children and adolescents were sparse. This rapid review found a high number of epidemiological studies on the impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, but only a few used probability sampling methods.

The Effect of Ambient Environmental Conditions on COVID-19 Mortality: A Systematic Review.

Weather conditions may have an impact on SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission, as has been shown for seasonal influenza. Virus transmission most likely favors low temperature and low humidity conditions. This systematic review aimed to collect evidence on the impact of temperature and humidity on COVID-19 mortality. This review was registered with PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42020196055). We searched the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane COVID-19 databases for observational epidemiological studies. Two independent reviewers screened the title/abstracts and full texts of the studies. Two reviewers also performed data extraction and quality assessment. From 5051 identified studies, 11 were included in the review. Although the results were inconsistent, most studies imply that a decrease in temperature and humidity contributes to an increase in mortality. To establish the association with greater certainty, future studies should consider accurate exposure measurements and important covariates, such as government lockdowns and population density, sufficient lag times, and non-linear associations.

Stigmatization from Work-Related COVID-19 Exposure: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Stigmatization from work-related COVID-19 exposure has not been investigated in detail yet. Therefore, we systematically searched three databases: Medline, Embase, and PsychInfo (until October 2020), and performed a grey literature search (until February 2021). We identified 46 suitable articles from 24 quantitative and 11 qualitative studies, 6 systematic reviews, 3 study protocols and 1 intervention. The assessment of stigmatization varied widely, ranging from a single-item question to a 22-item questionnaire. Studies mostly considered perceived self-stigma (27 of 35 original studies) in healthcare workers (HCWs) or hospital-related jobs (29 of 35). All articles reported on stigmatization as a result of work-related COVID-19 exposure. However, most quantitative studies were characterized by convenience sampling (17 of 24), and all studies-also those with an adequate sampling design-were considered of low methodological quality. Therefore, it is not possible to determine prevalence of stigmatization in defined occupational groups. Nevertheless, the work-related stigmatization of occupational groups with or without suspected contact to COVID-19 is a relevant problem and increases the risk for depression (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74; 95% confidence interval CI 1.29-2.36) and anxiety (OR = 1.75; 95% CI 1.29-2.37). For promoting workers' health, anti-stigma strategies and support should be implemented in the workplace.

[Rapid Reviews in the Time of COVID-19 - Experiences of the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19 and Proposal for a Standardized Procedure]. / Rapid Reviews in Zeiten von COVID-19 ­ Erfahrungen im Zuge des Kompetenznetzes Public Health zu COVID-19 und Vorschlag eines standardisierten Vorgehens.

AIMS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many health-related questions require rapid answers. In the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19, founded by representatives of several scientific societies in March 2020, rapid reviews are often conducted to generate evidence-based answers that are useful for policy makers. The aim of this paper is to reflect on the practical experience with rapid reviews in the context of the Competence Network Public Health. Methods for high-quality and practicable implementation of rapid reviews were developed, which are particularly helpful for rapid evidence generation based on observational studies. METHODS: Using the 8-step approach proposed by Tricco et al. [1], we describe the acute challenges that have arisen in the Public Health Competence Network COVID-19 while conducting rapid reviews on public health-related issues related to the COVID-19-pandemic. The 8 steps are: 1. conceptualization of the research question, 2. literature search, 3. title/abstract and full text screening, 4. data extraction, 5. risk of bias assessment, 6. evidence synthesis, 7. dissemination, 8. update. We develop a methodological approach for conducting rapid reviews by expert consensus of the members (n=42 as of 01/28/2021) of the Rapid Reviews Working Group in the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19. RESULTS: A standardized approach is presented that closely follows the approach of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and takes into account the special requirements of etiological - but often also ecological - observational studies on COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed approach for conducting rapid reviews can form an important basis for evidence-based policy advice - certainly beyond questions related to COVID-19. Flexible and rapid funding concepts should be made available for the short-term realization of methodologically high-quality rapid reviews on emerging questions. Scientific cooperation in conducting rapid reviews needs to be expanded, and more methodologically high-quality approaches such as prospective meta-analyses should be used.

Evidence Synthesis of Digital Interventions to Mitigate the Negative Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Public Mental Health: Rapid Meta-review.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests the COVID-19 pandemic has negative effects on public mental health. Digital interventions that have been developed and evaluated in recent years may be used to mitigate the negative consequences of the pandemic. However, evidence-based recommendations on the use of existing telemedicine and internet-based (eHealth) and app-based mobile health (mHealth) interventions are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the theoretical and empirical base, user perspective, safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions related to public mental health provision (ie, mental health promotion, prevention, and treatment of mental disorders) that may help to reduce the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A rapid meta-review was conducted. The MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases were searched on May 11, 2020. Study inclusion criteria were broad and considered systematic reviews and meta-analyses that investigated digital tools for health promotion, prevention, or treatment of mental health conditions and determinants likely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Overall, 815 peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified, of which 83 met the inclusion criteria. Our findings suggest that there is good evidence on the usability, safety, acceptance/satisfaction, and effectiveness of eHealth interventions. Evidence on mHealth apps is promising, especially if social components (eg, blended care) and strategies to promote adherence are incorporated. Although most digital interventions focus on the prevention or treatment of mental disorders, there is some evidence on mental health promotion. However, evidence on process quality, cost-effectiveness, and long-term effects is very limited. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that digital interventions are particularly suited to mitigating psychosocial consequences at the population level. In times of physical distancing, quarantine, and restrictions on social contacts, decision makers should develop digital strategies for continued mental health care and invest time and efforts in the development and implementation of mental health promotion and prevention programs.

The Age-Related Risk of Severe Outcomes Due to COVID-19 Infection: A Rapid Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.

Increased age appears to be a strong risk factor for COVID-19 severe outcomes. However, studies do not sufficiently consider the age-dependency of other important factors influencing the course of disease. The aim of this review was to quantify the isolated effect of age on severe COVID-19 outcomes. We searched Pubmed to find relevant studies published in 2020. Two independent reviewers evaluated them using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted the results and assessed seven domains of bias for each study. After adjusting for important age-related risk factors, the isolated effect of age was estimated using meta-regression. Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria: four studies for COVID-19 disease severity, seven for mortality, and one for admission to ICU. The crude effect of age (5.2% and 13.4% higher risk of disease severity and death per age year, respectively) substantially decreased when adjusting for important age-dependent risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease/cerebrovascular disease, compromised immunity, previous respiratory disease, renal disease). Adjusting for all six comorbidities indicates a 2.7% risk increase for disease severity (two studies), and no additional risk of death per year of age (five studies). The indication of a rather weak influence of age on COVID-19 disease severity after adjustment for important age-dependent risk factors should be taken in consideration when implementing age-related preventative measures (e.g., age-dependent work restrictions).

[Psychosocial Impact of Quarantine Measures During Serious Coronavirus Outbreaks: A Rapid Review]. / Psychosoziale Folgen von Quarantänemaßnahmen bei schwerwiegenden Coronavirus-Ausbrüchen: ein Rapid Review.

OBJECTIVE: Review of the evidence on the psychosocial impact of quarantine measures during serious coronavirus outbreaks before COVID-19. Such information is highly relevant in regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Search of the MEDLINE database for relevant studies related to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks. RESULTS: Across 13 identified studies, quarantine measures were consistently associated with negative psychosocial outcomes, including depressive symptoms, anxiety, anger, stress, posttraumatic stress, social isolation, loneliness and stigmatization. Determinants comprised duration of quarantine measures and income losses. Health care workers constituted a particularly vulnerable group. CONCLUSION: Quarantine measures during serious coronavirus outbreaks have extensive negative consequences for mental health. Prevention and intervention approaches to attenuate the psychosocial impact should be an integral component of crisis response during pandemic conditions.