Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Geriatrics (Basel) ; 8(3)2023 Apr 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2324771

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to assess the influence of living in nursing homes on COVID-19-related mortality, and to calculate the real specific mortality rate caused by COVID-19 among people older than 20 years of age in the Balaguer Primary Care Centre Health Area during the first wave of the pandemic. We conducted an observational study based on a database generated between March and May 2020, analysing COVID-19-related mortality as a dependent variable, and including different independent variables, such as living in a nursing home or in the community (outside nursing homes), age, sex, symptoms, pre-existing conditions, and hospital admission. To evaluate the associations between the independent variables and mortality, we calculated the absolute and relative frequencies, and performed a chi-square test. To avoid the impact of the age variable on mortality and to assess the influence of the "living in a nursing home" variable, we established comparisons between infected population groups over 69 years of age (in nursing homes and outside nursing homes). Living in a nursing home was associated with a higher incidence of COVID-19 infection, but not with higher mortality in patients over 69 years of age (p = 0.614). The real specific mortality rate caused by COVID-19 was 2.270/00. In the study of the entire sample, all the comorbidities studied were associated with higher mortality; however, the comorbidities were not associated with higher mortality in the infected nursing home patients group, nor in the infected community patients over 69 years of age group (except for neoplasm history in this last group). Finally, hospital admission was not associated with lower mortality in nursing home patients, nor in community patients over 69 years of age.

2.
PLoS One ; 17(8): e0272341, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2079712

ABSTRACT

There is an ongoing debate about whether gender equality in education has been achieved or not. Research efforts have focused on primary and secondary education, while there are fewer studies on higher education, and few studies refer to distance education. To contribute to address this gap, this article presents a gender analysis of educational outcomes in economics at Spain's leading distance university, UNED, which is also the largest university in the European Union in terms of enrolment. The aim of the article is to assess whether there is a gender gap in academic results and to identify the sociodemographic and academic variables that may be causing such a gap by analysing how they shape such differences. Finally, the impact of COVID-19 is also considered. The results confirm that women underperformed significantly in our sample in terms of passing and scoring, especially among those between 30 and 45 years of age, who are more likely to have young children. When considering a distribution of family tasks biased against women, along with the higher average age of distance learning university students, gender gaps could probably be greater in nonface-to-face education. COVID-19 narrowed the gender gap during the lockdown period, as some men and women staying at home together were able to improve task sharing capabilities. After the lockdown, however, women's results worsened compared to pre-COVID-19 levels. A possible explanation is that they had to continue performing the same family duties in addition to substituting education and caring services (e.g., nurseries and day centres for the elderly) that did not resume activity immediately or continuously.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Education, Distance , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Communicable Disease Control , Economics , Female , Humans , Male , Sex Factors , Work-Life Balance
3.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(11)2021 06 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1259488

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of Lung Ultrasound (LUS) for the diagnosis of interstitial syndrome caused by COVID-19 has been broadly described. The aim of this study was to evaluate if LUS may predict the complications (hospital admission) of COVID-19 pneumonia in primary care patients. METHODS: This observational study collects data from a cohort of 279 patients with clinical symptoms of COVID-19 pneumonia who attended the Balaguer Primary Health Care Area between 16 March 2020 and 30 September 2020. We collected the results of LUS scans reported by one general practitioner. We created a database and analysed the absolute and relative frequencies of LUS findings and their association with hospital admission. We found that different LUS patterns (diffuse, attenuated diffuse, and predominantly unilateral) were risk factors for hospital admission (p < 0.05). Additionally, an evolutionary pattern during the acute phase represented a risk factor (p = 0.0019). On the contrary, a normal ultrasound pattern was a protective factor (p = 0.0037). Finally, the presence of focal interstitial pattern was not associated with hospital admission (p = 0.4918). CONCLUSION: The lung ultrasound was useful to predict complications in COVID-19 pneumonia and to diagnose other lung diseases such as cancer, tuberculosis, pulmonary embolism, chronic interstitial pneumopathy, pleuropericarditis, pneumonia or heart failure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Primary Health Care , SARS-CoV-2 , Ultrasonography
4.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(7)2021 03 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154413

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly strained healthcare systems worldwide. The reference standard for diagnosis is a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, but results are not immediate and sensibility is variable. AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound compared to chest X-ray for COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective analysis of symptomatic patients admitted into one primary care centre in Spain between March and September 2020. METHOD: Patients' chest X-rays and lung ultrasounds were categorized as normal or pathologic. RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 infection. Pathologic lung ultrasound images were further categorized as showing either local or diffuse interstitial disease. McNemar and Fisher tests were used to compare diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Most of the 212 patients presented fever at admission, either as a standalone symptom (37.74% of patients) or together with others (72.17% of patients). The positive predictive value of the lung ultrasound was 90% for the diffuse interstitial pattern and 46.92% for local pattern. The lung ultrasound had a significantly higher sensitivity (82.75%) (p < 0.001), but lower specificity (71%) than the chest X-ray (54.02% and 86%, respectively) (p = 0.008) for identifying interstitial lung disease. Moreover, sensitivity of the lung ultrasound for severe interstitial disease was 100%, and was significantly higher than the chest X-ray (58.33%) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The lung ultrasound is more accurate than the chest X-ray for identifying patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and it is especially useful for those presenting diffuse interstitial disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Early Diagnosis , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Spain , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , X-Rays
6.
Cir Esp (Engl Ed) ; 98(6): 320-327, 2020.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-134380

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection has led to a radical reorganization of healthcare resources. Surgical Departments need to adapt to this change. METHODS: We performed a prospective descriptive observational study of the incidence of COVID-19 in patients and surgeons of a General Surgical Department in a high prevalence area, between the 1st and 31st of March 2020. RESULTS: Patients: The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in elective surgery patients was 7% (mean age 59.5 years). All survived. Of 36 patients who underwent emergency surgery, two of them were SARS-CoV-2 positive and one was clinically highly suspicious of COVID-19 (11.1%). All three patients died of respiratory failure (mean age 81 years). Surgeons: There were a total of 12 confirmed SARS-CoV-2+ cases among the surgical department staff (24.4%) (8 out of 34 consultants and 4 out of 15 residents). Healthcare activity: The average number of daily emergency surgical interventions declined from 3.6 in February to 1.16 in March. 42% of the patients who underwent emergency surgery had peritonitis upon presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The fast pace of COVID-19 pandemia should alert surgical departments of the need of adopting early measures to ensure the safety of patients and staff.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Surgeons/statistics & numerical data , Surgery Department, Hospital , Surgical Procedures, Operative/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Emergencies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Spain/epidemiology , Tertiary Care Centers
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL