Prevention of occupational hand eczema in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A controlled intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Occupational hand eczema (HE) is common among healthcare workers (HCWs) and has-in some regions of the world-increased during the COVID-19 pandemic due to related hygiene measures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of an intervention for HE prevention in HCWs during the pandemic. METHODS: A prospective, controlled, unblinded interventional trial was conducted in 302 HCWs. The intervention group (IG) (n = 135) received online-based health education and free access to hand cleansing and hand care products. The control group (CG) (n = 167) did not receive any intervention within the study. At baseline (T0), after 3 (T1) and 6 (T2) months, participants completed standardized questionnaires. The Osnabrueck Hand Eczema Severity Index (OHSI) was assessed at T0 and T2. RESULTS: During the observation period, there were no new HE cases in the IG (n = 115) and 12 cases (8.8%) in the CG (n = 136). OHSI values at T2 were lower in the IG (b = -1.44, p < 0.001). Daily use of emollients was higher at work (b = 1.73, p < 0.001) and at home (b = 1.62, p < 0.001) in the IG at T2. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was effective in HE prevention and improving skin care behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A continuous time meta-analysis of the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and individual preventive behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In several longitudinal studies, reduced willingness to show COVID-19-related preventive behavior (e.g., wearing masks, social distancing) has been partially attributed to misinformation and conspiracy beliefs. However, there is considerable uncertainty with respect to the strength of the relationship and whether the negative relationship exists in both directions (reciprocal effects). One explanation of the heterogeneity pertains to the fact that the time interval between consecutive measurement occasions varies (e.g., 1 month, 3 months) both between and within studies. Therefore, a continuous time meta-analysis based on longitudinal studies was conducted. This approach enables one to examine how the strength of the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and COVID-19 preventive behavior depends on the time interval. In total, 1035 correlations were coded for 17 samples (N = 16,350). The results for both the full set of studies and a subset consisting of 13 studies corroborated the existence of reciprocal effects. Furthermore, there was some evidence of publication bias. The largest cross-lagged effects were observed between 3 and 6 months, which can inform decision-makers and researchers when carrying out interventions or designing studies examining the consequences of new conspiracy theories.

Who believes in conspiracy theories? A meta-analysis on personality correlates

Conspiracy theories are ubiquitous (e.g., 9/11, COVID-19) and can have negative consequences (e.g., prejudice). Thus, there is an increasing need for evidence-based recommendations (e.g. possible target groups) with respect to interventions and prevention measures. Present Bayesian three-level meta-analysis (686 correlations, 127 independent samples) includes a synthesis of the extant literature with respect to 12 personality correlates and their relationship with conspiracy beliefs. On average, people who believe in pseudoscience, suffer from paranoia or schizotypy, are narcissistic or religious/spiritual and have relatively low cognitive ability, are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. Heterogeneity was partially explained by the examined moderators and no strong evidence for publication bias was found. Implications for developing tailored interventions are discussed in the article.