Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
BMC Public Health ; 22(1): 1757, 2022 09 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2038715

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed peoples' routine of daily living and posed major risks to global health and economy. Few studies have examined differential impacts of economic factors on health during pandemic compared to pre-pandemic. We aimed to compare the strength of associations between perceived health and socioeconomic position (household income, educational attainment, and employment) estimated before and during the pandemic. METHODS: Two waves of nationwide survey [on 2018(T1;n = 1200) and 2021(T2;n = 1000)] were done for 2200 community adults. A balanced distribution of confounders (demographics and socioeconomic position) were achieved across the T2 and T1 by use of the inverse probability of treatment weighting. Distributions of perceived health [= (excellent or very good)/(bad, fair, or good)] for physical-mental-social-spiritual subdomains were compared between T1 and T2. Odds of bad/fair/good health for demographics and socioeconomic position were obtained by univariate logistic regression. Adjusted odds (aOR) of bad/fair/good health in lower household income(< 3000 U.S. dollars/month) were retrieved using the multiple hierarchical logistic regression models of T1 and T2. RESULTS: Perceived health of excellent/very good at T2 was higher than T1 for physical(T1 = 36.05%, T2 = 39.13%; P = 0.04), but were lower for mental(T1 = 38.71%, T2 = 35.17%; P = 0.01) and social(T1 = 42.48%, T2 = 35.17%; P < 0.001) subdomains. Odds of bad/fair/good health were significantly increased at T2 than T1 for household income (physical-mental-social; all Ps < 0.001) and educational attainment (social; P = 0.04) but not for employment (all Ps > 0.05). AORs of bad/fair/good health in lower household income were stronger in T2 than T1, for mental [aOR (95% CI) = 2.15(1.68-2.77) in T2, 1.33(1.06-1.68) in T1; aOR difference = 0.82(P < 0.001)], physical [aOR (95% CI) = 2.64(2.05-3.41) in T2, 1.50(1.18-1.90) in T1; aOR difference = 1.14(P < 0.001)] and social [aOR (95% CI) = 2.15(1.68-2.77) in T2, 1.33(1.06-1.68) in T1; aOR difference = 0.35(P = 0.049)] subdomains. CONCLUSIONS: Risks of perceived health worsening for mental and social subdomains in people with lower monthly household income or lower educational attainment became stronger during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to pre-pandemic era. In consideration of the prolonged pandemic as of mid-2022, policies aiming not only to sustain the monthly household income and compulsory education but also to actively enhance the perceived mental-social health status have to be executed and maintained.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Educational Status , Health Status , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
Epidemiol Health ; 44: e2022044, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1841573

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care in a tertiary hospital in Korea without specific lockdown measures. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of cancer patients from one of the largest tertiary hospitals in Korea was used to compare healthcare utilization in different settings (outpatient cancer clinic, the emergency department [ED], and admissions to the hematology/oncology ward) between January 1 and December 31, 2020 and the same time period in 2019. The percent changes in healthcare utilization between the 2 periods were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 448,833 cases from the outpatient cohort, 26,781 cases from the ED cohort, and 14,513 cases from the admission cohort were reviewed for 2019 and 2020. The total number of ED visit cases significantly decreased from 2019 to 2020 by 18.04%, whereas the proportion of cancer patients remained stable. The reduction in ED visits was more prominent in patients with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19, high-acuity cases, and those who lived in non-capital city areas. There were no significant changes in the number of total visits, new cases in the outpatient clinic, or the total number of hospitalizations between the 2 periods. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, the number of ED visits significantly decreased, while the use of the outpatient clinic and hospitalizations were not affected. Cancer patients' ED visits decreased after the COVID-19 outbreak, suggesting the potential for collateral damage outside the hospital if patients cannot reach the ED in a timely manner.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Neoplasms , Communicable Disease Control , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Tertiary Care Centers
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL